210thars, I still vote for No 6, as min the guy is real, available in everyday talking (in the side business - "Int'l Chatter Pavillion" - created for off-top talks, as a branch of the "An airplane crashed in Smolensk" blog.) As a matte of fact I will ask him in the "Pavillion" again, he proves to be not so old:o) after all and quite relaxed there.
Though personally I don't see the difference btw 6 and 10 :o)
One live man who can be asked and re-asked is better than "we think Russians have".
400 instead of 300 at Far Beacon is of course bad, though may be manageable? in ground control opinion. Note though that they didn't communicate it to the control. It's said by A(nonimous) and addressing the crew. So did the control see it - is a question.
There was an idea that un-perfect glideslope could have been "tolerated" by the ground control as they didn't give them clearance to land, and for the purpose "to have a go have a look" (mysterious thing!) a heigher start than norm at Far Beacon was alright.
For landing though nothing but published aerodrome scheme is alright, the angle in degrees and 300 metres height at Far Beacon.
There was a build up to this, un-researched well, I mean, in talks, - many commented there was something with the crew having difficulty to take 500 metres height. Way too many times (for normal comms) there were crew-control exchanges "Have you taken 500 height? - Not yet. Have you taken 500 height? not yet" - 3 times like that.