Thanks Sarcs for the clarification. I actually thought that the premise of the report that you linked to was QI as it suggested that a straightforward transcript of a CVR didn't provide a complete picture. Much the same way that an email(or a posting on pprune) can be misinterpreted as tone and intent can get lost in the mere placing of words on paper. Either way it didn't seem to get any traction.
The first time that style of diagram appeared was in the QF1 report. It is an attempt to put the Reason model in a box and as you have highlighted it may be theoretically impressive but doesn't give a real time indication of what contributes to an accident. Like a lot of HF specialists from a cognitive psychology background they lack the practical knowledge of what happens in a flight deck. To academics or bureaucrats (you know who they are),they are all wise and all knowledgeable.