Quoting Airfoilmod:
4. A responsible body as AAIB, not finding any cause to recommend changes in equipment or procedures, has left open the door to very few alternate albeit certainly not unobserved causative scenarios.
5. These few alternates are perforce limited to very unique and incident related possibilities. (Not generally assumed to happen again).
6. Microwave sensitive equipment could be adversely affected by tramp signal, returning to 100% post incident functionality, without record of anomaly.
7. Destruction of the Center Tank in the Landing phase may rule out an implication of tank issues.
8. There is probably good reason to withold investigative communication from the public.
Perhaps this is why several posts have been removed from this thread (some of mine amongst others)? Maybe some theories approximate the true cause of this incident. If so, this thread is biassed but my theory still stands:
1. A unique set of circumstances causing disruption of a subsystem.
2. Disruption resulting in a reverse logic electrical failure downstream of ELMS. Why downstream of ELMS? Because relays within ELMS provided correct signals to the engine controls according to the AAIB.
3. Spar valve control may have been affected.
4. Provided the fuel synoptic page was not selected at the time of the system disruption (I don't think so in the approach phase), no visible or aural alerts to the flight crew were presented because this may be inherent to the subsystem design (not going into details here because it is proprietary information).
5. Disruption was of a temporary nature and reset itself.
6. Impossible to prove without testing, which is a task for the AAIB, Boeing and RR to do so and find the facts.
Regards,
Green-dot