Tropical storm complexes identical to or stronger than this one [the MCS on June 1] have probably been crossed hundreds or thousands of times over the years by other flights without serious incident, including ascents and descents through critical icing zones in tropical showers.
This is what is called "Russian roulette"
A game can not be a winner ..you always lose .. it's just a matter of time.
To be sure not to lose (or sure to win) should not play "Russian roulette" (do not go in these areas)
This leads to the same circular argument as volcanic ash. The air we fly through always has some degree of ash, water and turbulence. You can't just say don't fly in them because it's like how high is high.
The pilot can be given guidance but can not be given orders that are black and white without the means to measure. Thus the investigation needs to ask about the guidance and the means as well as the performance of the crew. As far as I know the investigation has not made a conclusion in this regard so why should we?
Weather is dynamic so what another flight did a half hour before or after is only a hint, towards their guidance and means of measurment and not a conclusive finding for the accident flight