OK but
by definition the MAR (recommendations remember) are just that and again I reiterate it comes down to a difference in view between the BD trials officers and other agencies.
I have no inside knowledge of the Mk2 procurement so the only comment I can make on your statement 'in the full knowledge that it is physically or functionally unsafe' is that the term 'unsafe' is one particular point of view, obviously the IPT had a different view, as is their right.
I accept that the MoD Proc system requires 'reasoned explanation to be logged', but does that apply to BD as well? Do BD have to justify why any existing limitations are disregarded and their own put in place, or is the statement 'we havent looked at it so it must be unsafe' all that is needed? In my experience no credit seems to be given to previous work or certification already granted to other operators of the aircraft, it smacks a bit of arrogance in that only BD's view is taken as valid.
DM