B Word
I don't write the Regulations, I implement them.
I actually think 553 is the most suitable place for the SofS to lay down this policy. The divergence you talk of then occurs at a lower level, but is laid down right up front in the Regs.
I think the main concern in what you say is that the attributes mentioned are no longer applied to engineers in many MoD areas. Before I could receive airworthiness delegation I had to satisfy all these and pass various exams in the process. Nowadays, non-engineers are immediately permitted to make engineering design (and hence safety) decisions, never having been remotely near a tool before, nevermind an aircraft.
For some years, the "system" has relied on this dismemberment of standards not applying to front line (thus removing defences in depth) but the two are inextricably linked and interdependant. While I don't want to pre-judge this Puma case, the evidence of wider damage to the "system" has been brutally exposed in successive inquests and inquiries.
Next week Mr Haddon-Cave QC reports. I don't think any of his recommendations will come as surprise to Pprune readers. Certainly, MoD has been implementing them for the last 18 months, so don't be fooled when their press release says "We know all this and have already implemented".