JFZ90
The article is not misleading in any way. It states accurately that the QinetiQ report found the system tolerable but not ALARP. It goes into extensive detail to explain why ALARP is a key part of the definition of safe under the MoD's own rules and being tolerable is not enough. If it is not ALARP then it is not safe.
Does the limited paperwork you have access to say it is ALARP or does it say it is not ALARP? It says it is not ALARP.
Does it also say that in order to be ALARP no fewer than 30 recommendations need to be taken up? Yes it does.
How many of those relate to AAR? Just five.
Look again at the definition of safe under the MoD's own rules - Defence Standards 00-56 as issued in April 2007.
Risk has been demonstrated to have been reduced to a level that is
ALARP and broadly acceptable or tolerable, and relevant prescriptive
safety requirements have been met, for a system in a given application
in a given operating environment.
Does that definition say that being tolerably safe is enough? No it doesnt. The system must be ALARP and either broadly acceptable or tolerable. If QinetiQ says it isnt ALARP then it can not be deemed safe under the MoD's own rules.