but they are unequivocal in showing that the Mk2 wasn't airworthy.
It should be reiterated that in 1999 the Chief of Defence Procurement confirmed to the Public Accounts Committee that perhaps the most fundamental component of airworthiness had not been implemented properly on Chinook (and other aircraft).
Not that he could deny it, given the numerous reports in the 90s which said precisely the same thing as Haddon-Cave; all arising from the problems caused by the swingeing cuts in the funding to maintain airworthiness.
But perhaps "confirmed" is the wrong word. "Boasted" may be better, given his consistent written rulings that functional safety could be ignored for the purposes of declaring airworthiness. And the inability to confirm functional safety is exactly what Boscombe are talking about in these memos.
Now, when you have that kind of lunacy at the top, little wonder the CAR and RTS were signed in the face of a "positively dangerous" statement.