Bismark:
the MoD places itself on record as to why it does or does not agree and why it has or has not implemented a change to equipment/regulation
Er, not if it can help it it doesn't! That is why Reviewing Officers such as Messrs Wratten and Day are so useful. They can blissfully ignore a BoI (even one as pliable as the Mull one), come up with their own creative "take" and usefully bury the very idea that the totally dysfunctional Digital Engine Control system or even a history of control jamming in one two or even all three axis might have any bearing whatsoever. As to the "Military Acceptable Risk" aspects of Airworthiness, that would include fuel couplings that leak under pressure, fuel lines routed through bays containing ignition sources, Anti Collision Lights swapped in situ for High Intensity Strobe Lights that can dazzle the pilots in low level haze to the extent that they switch them off, IFF sets with no failure warning and unprotected fuel tanks on a Tactical Transport aircraft? All of these airworthiness deficiencies have occurred in fatal crashes. Where was the "Military" advantage to that? Seems to me there would be a "Military" advantage in breaking up this self serving incestuous arrangement!