7 months and counting.
This incident had a cause. Period.
The consequences could have been extremely serious if the issue had occurred just a few moments earlier.
If it has happened once, it can happen again, unless something changes. Period.
The fact that the cause remains unidentified must remain as a significant concern.
IMHO and from what we have surmised sufficient data exists to implicate a combination of fuel / fuel delivery system / and environment.
Therefore I would have expected some form of interim procedure / system change to have been introduced to reduce risk until a full explanation is unravelled.
The most surprising omission IMHO is why increased fuel temp monitoring / modified temp threshold value / increased water drain off frequency (or conditions) does not appear to have been introduced, at least on this sector or with this operator.
Maybe such an action has been taken although not reported.
Such an action would be a low cost "palliative" and would also add to data collection.
IMHO I still suspect the "fuel" (i.e. including water from the CWT) in combination with other factors.
Not that it was out of spec, but that the current spec(s) / procedures are too loose in some way.
Its the only thing that was truly common to both systems.