Yes, there are representatives of MAK participating as accredited representatives in this investigation (as is the usual practice).
Safety Pee...Thanks for your comment. I am aware of the protocols in these instances; my point was that issuing a "jointly signed statement" at this juncture (if that in fact occurred) which makes statements about things that there is as yet no evidence of, is quite different than issuing updates of factual confirmed information.
I have been involved in many investigations where pressure was applied early in an investigation by interested parties for the agency to issue statements saying that so far "there is no evidence of this", or "no indication of that", etc.
Most state investigative agencies strive to avoid such statements, for several reasons, the most important of which is: The need to be (and appear to be) completely independent of any influence from any source, from the time of the accident until the release of the final report.
A second, but potentially more critical reason, is that there have been occasions wherein DFDR data added causal information not available through a CVR analysis, or a wreckage analysis.