Just a thought.
All the talk about tread types is perhaps true in the ideal world. You could design the perfect anti-aquaplaning tyre. However, there will still be wear limits, and the bean counters that control most things these days will get their pound of flesh, and more, out of every tyre. The odd bit of canvas showing is not uncommon, especially as there might not be a spare to hand. What effect 3 re-treds will have on the tread pattern and strength would also be a factor.
Sod's law operates in most accidents. The days of a down-pour will coincide with the tyres being at their wear limits. The storm will cause the wind to be from other than the prevailing direction, which means the runway aligment will be wrong and the cross wind testing.
Plant it, was the advice from the old crusties. Avoid it, was another. Easy to say.
Better runway surface design would help. Certainly better surface cleaning. The rubber slick is left too long. There have been various accidents, DC.8 at ATH and L-1011 at LBA spring to mind, where the position of desired max braking turned out to be near to non-existant. The surface was more suitable for Torvil & Dean than Captain Prune.
In the V1 stop case, I believe that on limiting field lengths, if you are departing on a damp runway opposite to the normal landing traffic direction, the braking action towards the end will be way lower than that generaly published.
Like many things it seems an inexact science. I wonder if the data gained from the racing track can really be extrapolated upto the energy levels of 350 tons doing 170mph?