On the contrary, it seems pre-empting the outcome of the investigation is exactly the intention. Even then, the selective use of words suggests hedging of bets... Electrical fault? Related systems fault? Etc, etc. So basically it claims a lot and says little. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this.
I don't think you need to draw any "conclusions" from it, but doubt it is anything other than basically correct and informative, particularly if you were, say, a non-UK Mk10 operator.
The CAA MPD was far more revealing in technical detail, and told a story in it's own right.
Ummmm, where do you draw that from? Unsure of any of the Seat/Canopy system/operation that has anything to do with Electrics
NoD