sorry for not reading the 2 reports but still giving my 2 cents worth.
IMHO all parties involved with the investigation were satisfied with the factual part of the report. I believe even the S'pore team commented that it was a job well done. Even on contentious items such as status of the 05R edge lights many 'facts' were gathered which i believe were not disputed.
The problem as i understand it was the analysis part. As we can see, from the same facts, they can come to different conclusions regarding the status of the edgelights (although both sides did temper their conclusion with 'probably').
Also another main point of contention was the listing of probable causes attributing 7 of them to the pilots and 1 to weather, while airport deficiencies were listed as risks. IMHO this appears to be apportioning 'blame'. Although later on, ASC did come out to clarify that as stated earlier by them the report did not apportion blame to any parties. And that 'relief' shouldn't be the reaction from CKS airport authorities for it was not what the report intended. ASC also pointed out that the number of 'risk' factors listed were more than 'probable causes' and that this was not inconsequential.
All these reactions after the report was made public, imho stems from the choice of words and style of presentation (see hawkeye 18's 1st posting on pg 1). What is ASC's report really saying (or implying)? Leave it to the media and you have 'one sided' reports coming out (which is natural though not desirable and imho, NOT intentional 'brain washing').
With respect to SQ006, i think the wrong turn into 05R is not the BIG issue here. One can make a wrong turn (and i think this not as uncommon as one would have liked?) without the same disastrous outcome. eg:
i) realize the mistake and turn out again, or
ii)dont realize the mistake but still take off from the wrong but operational runway ..... (safely!?).
The big issue is taking off from a CLOSED runway. Some would insist that it was a PARTIALLY closed runway and therefore not technically 'CLOSED'. How is one supposed to make that distinction if the difference is only 'apparent' when you are passed 'V1'. Some would counter that the centre lights were not white and there were no touch-down lights and that the edge lights "were almost certainly off" that this was not a runway but a taxiway. Some will say that the PVD "had not unshuttered" hence this was a wrong runway. Then how come "all 3 pilots thought they saw a ‘normal runway scene’ " and thought they were on the correct runway?
Will the courts have the last say?