I'm trying to keep this in line with this site's reason for existence. It is primarily the Professional Pilots' Site, on which, of course, we welcome input from ALL involved in aviation.
I wish to view this from the PP standpoint. The theorists appear to be ignoring the fact that pilots regularly land on limiting and often 'difficult' runways and that this flight was TASKED to do so by the airline ops and scheduling department. Therefore the shortness of 35L at CGH, the wet, the ungrooved surface, the landing weight, the lack of over-run - even, looking at previous landings, the u/s T/R, are not primary causes to us. They are part of the 'routine' operation of that airframe expected on that day. Whether there should have been restrictions etc is for the enquiry - and I firmly believe there should.
At worst we should have seen a minor incident with an a/c in the grass. What turned what should have been a 'routine' landing' into a major accident was the thrust delivered by NO 2. The detailed analysis and categorisation of other factors is, of course, needed, and we also need to know whether the a/c system needs to be changed.
Sadly, it very much looks as if our old friend, the 'Swiss Cheese', had all the holes pretty well lined up except the last one.