TR, Safetypee seems to have access to a report. I had the perspective of being in the industry, and involved in Mexico, and somewhat involved with Aviacsa at the time. I have no report. It was said at the time that the Aviacsa engineer wanted to pull #3 for cracks, but the Lycoming engineer on site insisted in getting more hours on wing.
How #4 kills #3, as related by SafetyPee, except by shrapnel or fuel shutoff I don't know. Debris from #3 killing #4 makes sense. PSA had #4 aft section explode at 27K alt, and I'm sure it didn't kill #3 or the others. There was hot shrapnel in the cabin in that case, also at night, and they landed without further incident in KFAT.
Back to the C-17. I am skeptical of a machine built to govt specification being as robust as a civil machine. The single customer gets too detailed with the design, rather than a broad specification, and the manufacturer builds to the specification in the contract.
The KC-10A, a tankered DC-10, was for years, and may still be, the most reiliable plane in the USAF fleet. It has only a few mil radios, and boom electronics. The boom drive is even an autopilot computer from an MD-80.
GB