I think the point being made is one I made earlier. The SI correctly reports these factors/failings, but does not explore underlying reasons; negligent in the extreme given they all fall into the category "FFS, not again!" The uninformed reader (most of MoD and, to a lesser extent, Joe Public), would infer this is all a revelation, confined to Hawk, when in fact it has all been formally reported over many years, applies pan-MoD, and a deliberate decision made not to address it. That is, knowingly place aircrew in danger.
To repeat another question; if it is not the SI's job to understand what it is saying, then who? Not the MAA, apparently. They know the answers, but won't admit them; partly because knowing and understanding are two different things, partly because the facts directly implicate too many VSOs. The MAA's endorsement of the report, without explaining these factors, is a gross failure. What example does this set to those junior DE&S staffs charged with this, the most responsible of tasks?