The aircraft landed, no one injured and therefore some contributors are saying 'great job boys' as though the outcome determines whether or not the actions were appropriate. Aviation is littered with prangs where the guys and gals did everything right but still ended up in a smoking hole. Likewise I'm sure we can all point to incidents and accidents (sometimes even our own) where despite really ordinary decision making and processes the outcome has been an aircraft parked at the terminal and passengers disembarking without any clue as to what has transpired.
The point is that an outcome of 'landed, no injuries', does NOT mean there aren't lessons to be learned here and it seems quite clear that many contributors trivialise and/or minimise the potential impact of non standard phraseology. What if the smoke had been worse and they'd need fire trucks much earlier than they actually were? What if it'd been a cabin fire? It's not being a Monday morning quarter back to look at an accident/ incident and try and work out what I would do differently if faced with similar circumstances. In fact, it would be counter intuitive and detrimental to aircraft to NOT consider the impact of non standard phraseology in this incident.
To simply wash our hands and say 'the ATCO should have been more on the ball' or 'the aircraft landed safely, pax evacuated, good job' ignores the reality of the industry that we're in. To be blunt, it actually frightens me a little that I share the sky with people who are NOT prepared to learn from where others could have done better.