Dani, your concluding assumptions may be hard to substantiate (#294).
A PF in Cat 3A should have sufficient cues to assess aircraft position, flight path, and deviation from the norm – it’s the point have having visual requirements. Thus it is difficult to understand how Cat 1 or better results insufficient cues.
However, it is possible that the cues available were either not used, or not understood. Alternatively if the situation was known then the action was delayed or incorrect; the latter could be affected by alertness etc.
Thus, a decision to use autoland after a long flight, or when landing in lower than normal visibility, relies on good alertness. Perhaps as much as for manual flight?
IMHO, this incident has contributing factors originating much earlier;- in management, SOP advice on vis limits, not requiring declaration of A/L intent, and crew, an awareness of preceding traffic and the hazard/risks involved.