Walter
Faced with MoD's attitude toward the subject, all we can do is fire fight with sand buckets. I dare say the MAA are finding the same but you never know, one day they may consult people who know how to do it properly and who retain a copy of the mandated Standards MoD got rid of 19 years ago, without replacement. What a co-incidence. Just as CHART was reporting to the Chief Engineer.
Not sure why you constantly highlight the link between your theory and (lack of) airworthiness, yet in the same breath denigrate those who think the latter should be attained and maintained. If it had been, then you would have less cause to complain that no-one can seemingly answer many of your questions, because the answers would be there for all to see.
For umpteen years you postulated CPLS was fitted. If simple, mandated regs had been followed, the RTS would list the kit and what level of clearance it had. It didn't, so you struggled. (And it is not clear to me what questions you have asked MoD). You were thwarted for all that time by a basic airworthiness failure, yet apparently cannot see the irony of complaining about people who think the very regulations that would have helped should be implemented. It is a perverse stance, but admittedly not as perverse as MoD's.
-re your point about the Nav team. Given the excellent posts by Robin Clark, Dalek and others, I'd say such a "team" exists. Perhaps, even, a significant report on the subject has been submitted concentrating on the rather basic issue of not one single piece of Nav kit having any operational clearance. Such a report would be factual, supported by evidence provided by MoD themselves. To generate doubt (see previous post) one would not even have to discuss the unvalidated and unverified data retrieved by Racal, thus avoiding accusations of conjecture or unsubstantiated theory. But it is good to discuss it, because it serves to highlight how sloppy the original investigation was.
Having read your own submission at great length, I thought you made your case very well - the video is particulary techy, something the BoI should have tried. But at the end of the day one set of evidence is factual, yours is speculation. That is where MoD can refute for lack of evidence (again, somewhat ironic, but you know they are a duplicitous bunch). But, the case for (lack of) airworthiness has been made and the evidence supplied in abundance by MoD, so it only remains for Lord Philip to say if this constituted an organisational fault. I say again, at no time has any claim been made this caused the crash; only that it introduces doubt. Your theory is designed to explain the direct cause, which is where we diverge. It does not mean either of us is wrong, just that we have different aims.