Turbine D has it right.
It's one thing for interested parties to review a draft and comment privately. It's an entirely different view when the subsequent comments are material enough in nature to result in a disagreement that need be publisized.
Yes the investigating agency has the final say in their opinions to what gets published. However the regulatory agency has the final say in what corrective action is accepted.
Typically the designer/manufacturer/operator is the one that must propose such continued airworthiness actions. If these in themselves are not deemed adequate the regulator may alter them and modify the certificate to the point where the product can not be flown until ....
It's shame that all this what-ifs get burried in a specific incident thread, Like others have said the identification of causal factors in this case are generally agreed between parties the corrective action has been proposed by compentent people and now that the implementation is under way even then the issue remains open to any new data (like more cracks)
Fear not if this becomes a bigger issue then such modification of the certificate will be published for wider expert comment. I do say expert, because most of the coments made by non-experts are disposed in a general sense during publication. If no certificate modification is published than all the questions by those on the sidelines will likely not be furthur addressed than by News releases.