In my experience, the manufacturer's recommendations after first run DFDR are usually an accurate indication of where at least the relevant operating aspects will be found, and in this respect the reported Airbus statement above seems to have many echoes of the previously reported incidents on this thread. Usual caveat that Airbus has a vested interest in the direction of finger-pointing.
Rippa: In your reply #97 you mentioned that MLW was over 97% of allowable for a wet runway at CGH. Does the "wet runway" parameter distinguish between grooved and ungrooved? Do you know whether this flight ( & TAM procedures in general) included tankering fuel?