BB - that's a bit disappointing - I thought you might have been able combine the facts provided in the report with your no doubt extensive flying experience to come up with a hypothesis or two to explain the actions that immediately lead to the impact.
Which brings me back to my earlier generalisations comment, and limitations of their value. Saying "fly safer, or "fly by the rules" is valid and reasonable, but of limited value in focussing pilots' minds on risk areas. There can be further benefit in really trying to understand what actually caused the critical error in any given accident. Take the Sumburgh Super Puma crash - what actually caused two pilots to fail to monitor speed anmd height during an approach and hit the sea? Here is not the place to answer that of course.