I am tired of all the forensic stuff and biology lessons.
The problem with this of course is that a complex situation requires a multidisciplinary approach. We need to get as complete a picture as possible. There are likely some pieces of the puzzle missing altogether. Of the pieces we do have, no one person can hope to understand (or even recognize) them all.
Phase 3 was a waste of time. There was an assumption (erroneous as it turns out) that the pingers would have worked, and so they concluded that the initial search was conducted in the wrong area. Then they got a detailed drift analysis pointing elsewhere - and hence phase 3.
I don't under-estimate the work that went into this analysis. But it was contrary to other sophisticated drift analysis (USCG), and to the view of several here. It was also contrary to other information eg the Russian data that the plane usually ends up close to LKP.
Does this matter now? Maybe. I guess it will if the outcome is that the additional delay was responsible for any loss of data from the recorders. And I am sure those affected would have liked some answers earlier.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that input from lots of different people with different areas of expertise gives the best chance of producing good answers in a situation like this. And that it seems a little unfortunate if some people assume that other people have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
Can I perhaps suggest simply skipping over the bits that do not interest you?