Interesting discussion.
In BA we have had SESMA for years and I believe BA were the first airline in the world to implement a monitoring program. Both pilots and management have the utmost faith in the system and it has most definitely proved its worth many times over.
The system is anonymous. If during the SESMA review process the joint panel which examine events that are triggered by the system would like to know more then the ONLY person authorised and able to obtain the flight crew names is the appointed BALPA SESMA rep. He will telephone the pilot(s) concerned and discuss the event.
In reality BA has a very open and non-jeopardy safety culture and providing a pilot has not been wilfully negligent NO disciplinary action is taken should I or any other pilot walk in to the office and admit to making an error of judgement.
Such is our trust of the safety culture that if we suspect that we may have triggered a SESMA 'event' we may telephone the SESMA rep. to tell him or even walk in to the office to explain the situation. The pilot may be offered further training but the end result is no shame, no disciplinary and, hopefully, a safer operation. Safety, of course, being the whole point of the expensive system!
On the subject of SOP 'gates' EZ appear to have adopted the stabilised approach criteria which BA have been using for years. i.e. at 1000' RA an aircraft will be:
in the planned landing configuration, on the correct vertical profile, have approach power set, be at a speed no more than target approach speed +15kts.
If those criteria are not met at 1000' RA then CONSIDERATION must be given to a go-around. If the criteria are not met at 500' RA then an immediate go-around MUST be made.
At many US airfields with the shambolic, multiple and often totally unrealistic speed instructions it is difficult to comply with those approach criteria. Many years ago there was liason between BA and ATC at London where our requirements and theirs were discussed and suitable mutually acceptable speeds were agreed. Notwithstanding the slight difficulties of '160 to 4' in certain types I believe the speeds requested at the London airports and the above stabilised approach criteria work well.
Oh that such speed requests were as consistent and practical elsewhere in the world.