Looking back is looking back, forensics.
I think so.
What about this as one working understanding:
There is no "hindsight bias" in examinations of the recorders or other factual records. It is only "bias" when we substitute or subtlely (or not) dress the facts with what we think should have been done "but wasn't".
Theories about what happened and why are not hindsight bias because they are just that: theory. Theory
describing possible/plausible cause(s) is not fact until established by what is known from the record.
Bias is revealed by statements like, "I can't believe that a crew could...", or, "Why didn't they...", or "Well, obviously...", and promotes what we think, perhaps even logically so and from our experience,
should have happened, and proceeds from that point towards discussions of cause(s), under the assumption that it is still proper investigative technique.
Clearly it is more complicated than this and there are areas of cross-pollination which are difficult to steer clear of or engage in.