PBL - those of us involved in the PRACTICAL side of aircraft operation do not need book references to know that referring to EMAS in terms of preventing an 'accident' in the prevailing conditions at CGH, bearing in mind the terrain and energy levels involved, is farcical.
I expect your work is stunningly clever and relevant to theorists but I do not, at the moment, see it having much bearing on the aftermath of this accident. Even with any EMAS that could possibly have been installed at CGH there would have been severe injury and aircraft damage in this accident, thereby satisfying your definition - and the poster did say "accident/incident", by the way.
No, we don't need a definition of an incident.