Looking back a few pages.........
The fault which caused the return to stand seems to be air/ground sensing failure and not probe heat failure because the probe heat was working. Shouldn't have been working on the ground though.
In that case you could say that the MEL should not have been applied for probe heat failure and that the defect should have been investigated further.
I agree with an earlier post that the FIM (fault isolation manual) should caution about possible other effects associated with the failure observed but having seen how often the FIM isn't used I fear it wouldn't have helped.