If one looks at the study by Sir John Holmes, one sees some fairly serious gaps in his remit. Given that the issue (or not as the case might be) of medals has always been emotive, the opportunity for Holmes' study to deal with the thing once and for all has been missed.
Several things, including those mentioned above, might have been covered and I offer these without any opinion as to which way the coin should have landed.
The award of a long service medal for personnel, regardless of rank or combinations of non commissioned and officer service.
A review of the disqualification criteria, which affect mostly young personnel in the early years of service but which prevent them being awarded the LS&GCM in later years.
The different lengths of service required in different parts of the reserve and volunteer reserve forces eg; VR and VR(T) are 10 and 12 years but with different continuity terms and certain classes of the RAFR get nothing because they are deemed to be civil servants.
The replacement of the seven or is it eight different gongs for various parts of the Bulkans and issued by 3(?) different agencies, by a single 'quality' British campaign medal.
The award of a proper medal which denotes the MiD, and Queen's Commendation for Bravery, Valuable Service etc. After all, service personnel may wear the Royal Humane Society and certain other civilian medals, albeit on the right.
Confirmation that the events in Hong Kong during 1967-69, which got a bit hot at times - the events that is, not HK - were not sufficient to warrant a clasp to the GSM. This activity might also be undertaken for several other bits of 'nasty' over the last 50 years or so.
The whole question of the 'levels of gallantry' introduced circa 1994 could well do with a fresh look, given that they were originally set in a very different era than that in which the forces have operated in the last 15 years or so.
Old Duffer