Yes does seem a bit quiet. I suppose one would not like to be in the engineering team that were dealing with the chip issue, perhaps there is some desire not to give them a harder time than they will already be having.
The reason for the FAR references I suppose is that FAR29 and CS29 are virtually identical so no point in trying to change one without the other. There are of course a few FAA certified EC225s (but no L2s as far as I know) around.
One thing that did not get a mention (unless I missed it) is the language issue. EC of course have very much better English than we do French, however I routinely see misinterpretations on both sides. One only has to read EC's documentation to realise that it is not written by someone who has English as their first language.
At present all the documentation is written by the specialists in French, then translated into English, perhaps by someone who is a translator, not a technical specialist. Thereby creating the potential for misinterpretation etc. Interestingly we did receive a visit from the EC guy in charge of Flight Manuals a year or so ago - he said that the longer term plan was to have all the documents written originally in English, then translated into French as required. Sounds like a good plan but then he was English, so not sure how easy it will be for him to achieve that!
The language issue is surely good grounds for having solid and written dialogue with the manufacturer on critical issues. Yes as I said the written word can be ambiguous but it is surely better than the spoken word!
If fingers are pointed at the individual engineers concerned, that will be unfortunate because just like so many aviation accidents, the root cause is not the momentary action by the indivdual, rather the failure by the company's managers to ensure robust procedures and systems are in place with adequate monitoring for compliance.