Depends on what court we’re in and for what purpose the transcript is being adduced.
But let’s apply Occam’s Razor and assume it’s admissible and incontrovertible evidence that the precise words in the transcript were transmitted, at the time and on the frequency stated in the transcript.
It does not follow that those precise words were heard by the crew. Anybody with any experience in radio voice communications – especially HF voice communications – knows how easy it is to misunderstand, or not hear at all, some of those communications.
That’s why there’s a phonetic alphabet. That’s why there are standard transmission formats and phrases.
That’s why the standard phrases include: “say again”, “speak slower” and “words twice”.
There is only one person who can give first hand evidence of what the PIC heard. And the 'blame the pilot' crowd might want to entertain the possibility that what the pilot actually heard supported his decision, and he didn't know what he didn't know.