Actually thanks for the post if I'm honest it forces me to think more about the question I was asking. That's a good thing. I think my post was a little lazy. Yes the test fire not the same as recent events but none the less they involve electricity and fire which might be reasonably unremarkable but still you'd expect a focus given the innovation of the project.
In fact Boeing recognise as much
here
When I spoke about commercial considerations I had in mind the fact that the 787 test program was halted because of electrical fire (which you mention) and the fact as you yourself say it is more dependant on electrical systems than any other comparable type. So no doubt this was an area of focus and at the same time a voyage of discovery, but at what point do things shift from a test environment to production?
I don't want that to sound a loaded question because knowing engineers can always find a reason to improve and tweek things, so there is always a commercial reality to these things but I struggle to believe that there was nothing left on the list of "nice to do" with the 787 in this area.
You have a new aircraft with an electrical emphasis that suffered electric fires in flight test. Grounded in production for further electrical fires and then has another fire that seems to be electrical related. (or at least the fire department haven't found some cigarette end lodged somewhere etc).
If we are saying everything on the list was done to death could we say the list was therefore incomplete?
Since the above the AAIB have a special bulletin which confirms the ELT is of focus. It would be a huge co-incidence wouldn't it if the only failure of this type in 6000 units was in a 787!?