Is that a delay from the 1980s when the first accident reports stated that engine anticipators should be fitted urgently.....?
In 1979 I gained access to a Boscombe Down TP's report that recommended that the aircraft shouldn't be accepted into service without engine anticipators fitted; it was dated quite some years before 1979 (first HC1s came into service in 1971).
We managed to cope all right, but they obviously can't get the staff of the same calibre these days.
Having said that, the most responsive Puma I ever flew was one in NI that was red-lined for lack of engine matching at low power settings (they were set up manually with a screwdriver after flight testing, sometimes took ages). It had a 10 or 11% Ng split; IIRC the max book figure was 3 or 4%.
Whatever you did to the Nr, the high engine wouldn't back off to flight idle and the rotor response was far better. It felt like a totally different aircraft!
As an aside, the old Wessex lags said that the Puma would never last in RAF service because the airframe was built too lightly. 41 years in service as a Mk1 has proved them totally wrong!