I got the impression a lot had been done in the problem area on Concorde - in other words the actions of the manufacturer etc. were consistent with trying to ensure the aircraft would not be vulnerable. The facts are that it was bad luck rather than lax certification that led to the crash. Obviously, once the weakness was fully understood after the accident, things were changed, but it appears to be an abuse of hindsight to accuse the manufacturer/authorities of not attempting to address the tyre burst hazard adequately.
Conversely, it is harder to be sympatheic towards an abuse of airworthiness maintenance procedures - which at the end of the day did lead to the end of Concorde and significant loss of life.
The more I think about it the more I find myself agreeing with the french verdict.