Well said FG.
This place is all about subjectivity and none about objectivity. Pomp and circumstance do not make up for lack of strict standards put in writing and enforced upon the checkers/trainers first and only then on the rest. The 747 CP putting in writing that ONLY what's in quotation marks is a standard callout and required to be verbalised is a breath of fresh air. This place is at least moving towards the right direction. Lots of old timers however are utterly hopeless and pull way too much crap out of their behinds and call it standard and the fact that their BS is not in writing anywhere does not seem to be a problem to them. Fantasy personal preference based on a perceived understanding of one's own mind rules the day.
Just talking to a very senior checker who was livid about the fact that when they decide to require additional training or a redo of a PC they almost never inform the guy doing the redo why this is being done or what the objective of the extra training is so it is generally a waste of time in his opinion. So what would make anyone thing there will be any coherent training done on the RT the day after the PC that would have something to do with the PC the day before? At times the reports don't even get written up for a week or even more. How often have you seen agreement between what the sim instructor says and what the pc checker says the next day? And with our poorly written extra gray manuals which are intended to not be so restrictive to tie the hands of the thinking pilot (this according to "the bubble"... 3rd. Floor)... They can't see the forrest for the trees. Which trees are important and which are not of course depends on which individual you ask on the day, never mind what the book says. Subjectivity rules over objectivity. SOPs? Please, don't make me laugh.