It would appear that there are 'believers' on both sides of the argument.
I really don't know that much about this accident. However, I do know what it is like to operate in the real world, where expectations from management seldom match exactly what the manuals, etc state. I know that the regulator often does not adequately address this situation for one reason or the other.
I also know that when it goes pear-shaped, that management & the regulator often run for cover behind the manuals & rules despite what has been allowed & sometimes actively 'encouraged' on the line.
In the real world, things are not as simple, or cut & dried as some would like to believe. Throwing some documents around & using them to 'prove' that the sole reason for the accident was the pilot's fault doesn't really help anyone, apart from giving some the satisfaction of 'knowing' what the cause was.
Aside from a few obvious exceptions, pilot's don't go to work to get themselves & their passengers killed. The cause of an accident is always a product of many factors & if all of these factors are not explored, understood & addressed, the risk of a repeat accident is high.