Those of us who actually fly, and indeed those who are knowledgeable with the unfortunately vast subject matter provided by the field of air accident investigation, will know some simple facts. Namely, SOPs grew out of the study of actual, real accidents and were introduced to prevent the circumstances reoccurring. Therefore, we know that follow SOPs and you have a good chance of avoiding trouble, you don't and your chances of trouble increase vastly.
I ask those on these pages who advocate selective application of SOPs, or indeed willful disregard of same, show me the reports in which an accident/incident was caused due to rigorous following of SOPs?
In this case, the SOP was very simple and clear. Leave aside the assessment of whether the situation was life-threatening or not. That's a red herring. The SOP was breached prior to that assessment, namely at the time when she disregarded this part: "If communication is impossible with the pilot." It clearly wasn't impossible. The perception (if it existed) of being ignored is not "impossible." Being impossible is when the wreckage of the cockpit lies 50m from the rest of the fuselage. Standing in the same cockpit as two live and sensate pilots doesn't constitute impossible.
Aviation is about balancing risks. To those who say that a worse outcome might have been prevented by an early evacuation, let me remind you of the point of this SOP. The risk of allowing CCMs to initiate evacuations at their whim is far greater than the risk that a captain will miss something and mistakenly prevent an evacuation. The fact remains that as long as communication is possible, and quite possibly even if it's not, both flight deck crew are always in possession of far more information, and see a far bigger picture, than the CCMs.
In my company a similar SOP arose out of CCMs initiating an evacuation from a taxiing 747. There's always a good reason for SOPs.