Hey, we're not forgetting that. And "my arguments" that are cited above are not for my position: they are arguments intended to show that the reasoning given for "primary causes" does not prove anything.
The point about causation is just as simple: you are (rightly) asking "what can we as PPs learn about this?" That's perfectly legitimate, as is "How may this affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots?"
My point is that you don't ask this question directly from unsorted data. Before you ask such questions, you need to get at "What happened?" And that can include routine conditions (Gruyere comes in various flavors) that played a causative role. When a robust system fails, you need to examine all the elements in the failure.
After you put the whole puzzle together, then you make a judgment about which factors need mitigation, and defend it against those who don't share your point of view. But that is a judgment, separate and posterior to the reconstruction.
In other words, it's what you're already doing, just formalized. And formalized, it's more persuasive.