Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.
You are correct with the minor nature of the 93%. I think what needs attention is the seeking advice on the phone from maintenance watch and getting the verbal 'OK' to continue and it'll get sorted out next port.
It's my personal belief that M/W shouldn't be providing technical advice to pilots at an unmanned port where a pilot has determined that 1) there is a defect and 2) seen fit to contact M/W to seek further advice when M/W engineers don't have to put pen to paper after verbally telling a pilot it's fit to fly.
Otherwise wouldn't the company put it in the official procedures like MEL's the pilot can apply ? How about a section about ramp equipment impact damage allowable limits ? How about a section flight controls not returning to neutral positions ? A section on how to clear thrust reverser faults ?
The reason the above don't exist is because no one is brave/stupid enough to approve them without an engineer doing further investigation as to WHY the problem happened in the first place. Ask Mr Purvinas if he has proof of the above examples. I'd bet my left one he does.
At the end of the day, if something goes wrong you won't be held in high esteem because of your heroic efforts to get the plane and pax back home because some bloke in SYD said it was ok.