That is why build standards could no longer be maintained. That is why Safety Cases stopped working.
Chug, the only thing I'd add is that in the same year (1993) the RAF Chief Engineer/AMSO made yet another 28% cut to the necessary funding and in June that year finally gave up any presence at maintaining Build Standards. Noting the same contract (obviously) maintains the Safety Case and that he'd been formally notified of the inevitable outcome.
The greatest confidence check a programme manager can have is achieving Transfer to PDS. It is money in the bank, akin to a pilot's final walk round and systems checks. Today, if PDS is contracted against the MAA definition, then about 95% of the work covered under the 17 core components (where are they now articulated?!) won't be done; culminating in an invalid Safety Case. As you say - Nimrod, Red Arrows (no Safety Case!), Tornado, Chinook, C130............Rivet Joint.
Not only do the MAA refuse to acknowledge this common denominator in all these accidents and procurement failures, they also condone the long time teaching that it is a waste. Why? Simple, there are VSOs to protect and the MAA forms part of the same club. As you also point out, instead of probing causes and trends their announcements are designed to divert attention from flagrant breaches of law, praising those who have failed while staying silent as those who have succeeded (and DE&S has many such) are vilified. An unhealthy (in fact, deadly) trait.