they requested a parking bay simply to get more fuel.
Then drawing a tentative conclusion that it wasn't a mechanical/technical/computer fault is reasonable.
Above 80 knots the takeoff is rejected for fire or fire warning, engine failure, predictive windshear warning, (
for others, this means aircraft system warning, not other airplanes or tower warnings), or the airplane is deemed unsafe or unable to fly. There are no other AOM-required conditions to reject the takeoff; in other words, after 80 knots the book is "go-minded" except for the above.
As per reported radio communications, a willingness to go again after a refueling indicates that none of the above occurred except (we must assume) the last reason. Whatever it was, was evidently assessed, understood and then cleared right away, without maintenance intervention, (
ie, cb or system resets, changing PFM boxes, flight control problem, which usually grounds an airplane, etc). That information narrows the category of such faults (which render the airplane "unsafe" or "unflyable") even further.
One assumes that the FMA annunciations were read, announced and monitored as per SOP. An announcement of autothrust status is required when thrust is set and then at 80 knots. The call at 80 knots is a challenge - response requirement.
I think that both the recorders and the QAR (FOQA recorder) would be pulled and examined; this is Japan so the investigation will be very robust and detailed.
Checkboard, no worries - everyone's keen to find out and thank goodness for that. PJ2