Bottom line is that if you take the time to actually read the report, there was not a single shred of hard evidence that there was an engine failure. Suspicions based on suspect observations do not yield a factual conclusion. Pretty simple. I'm sure there was a lot of pressure to change a factually unsubstantiated conclusion, as there should be. The pilot was indeed flying far outside the envelope once again, much too fast at that altitude and approach distance. Occam's razor.
And Jack, if you're going to repost "contributions" from our esteemed "objective" colleague David Axe, at least have the common decency to link to his article or source your quote.