A and C. If that is the CAAs attitude re LAMP & manufacturers Type-Specific schedules, then the mistakes of the past will continue into the future. It's a bit like using a Morris Minor manual as a guide to servicing a BMW, there are bound to be items that are missed. Worse is the fear of litigation under the UK (& USA) adversarial legal system. With generic schedules subject to interpretation by engineers, anything missed could result in an accusation of negligence. Under the UK legal system if a problem occurs someone is assumed to have screwed up and that person must be found and punished. In contrast to the European consensual system which seeks to find the reason for the problem so that it is not repeated. Using my earlier example if a Cessna crashes because some item of servicing was not done in the past, the French would check the maintenance programme to see if the item is in there. If it is then the last engineer to use that programme is clearly at fault. If the item is not in the programme, then no one is at fault and an AD is issued.
I don't know how the present mess is to be sorted out, but it is crazy for engineers to be in fear of litigation for things that they cannot possibly know about due to past use of generic maintenance schedules.