EB Missfit
If you look back (if it is possible) at the previous two "mega-threads" covering this accident, you would see that we have covered the water content of the fuel (both in conjunction with the interim reports and from other info) and it is the LACK of any of all this previous info being repeated/summarised in the final report which is so amazing.
The choice of a standard BUT NON-REPRESENTATIVE 90 ppm for any initial tests might have been a sensible starting point. However, the tests failed to get consistent failures even with the unrepresentative 90 ppm. There is no mention in the final report of any attempts at testing at more representative water/fuel levels, nor IF any such tests were performed of any results.
It is not possible to regard the tests quoted in the final report as significant to the actual flight conditions. That is the glaring problem with the report. The report did not (at the least) repeat/summarise the information in the interim reports about the actual and presumed water levels in the flight at the time of the accident. It did not explain why tests actually representative of the presumed water/fuel levels weren't undertaken. The report has taken inconsistent results from unrepresentative water/fuel mixtures and somehow stated that they show the probable cause.
"Their" tests did not consistently prove "their hypothesis" (as you put it) - there were only occassions when they managed it. So what did the tests actually acheive ?
And, as ever, I would add the there does not, so far at least, seem to be a major industry wide investigation into the "new" phenonmen, nor an examination of ALL engine/airframe combinations to see if other designs may be at risk.
.