As A0283 posted earlier these breaks tend to occur close to the
strengthened interfaces - production breaks - between major components. This
explains the similarity in components of the debris after very different
accidents.
As I mentioned in my post ... my statement is a simplification ... even with that in mind, I would personally like to adapt your lines a little to something like: “... A0283 post ... these breaks have a higher probability to occur close to the ‘stronger and stiffer’ interfaces, like the so-called production breaks between major components. This may explain similarities in aircraft break-up and components/debris distribution. Even after quite different accidents.” Or perhaps we should say “accidents with different causes”.
In that respect, depending on the type of accident, it could be well advisable to add a manufacturing engineer (which is a special job function, each Tier 1 aircraft manufacturer has a a few) to an investigation team. Their view can add to the views that people with a pilot, design engineer, and maintenance background may not immediately have. Would be interesting to know if anyone has any knowledge of, or experience with this in practice.
Your remark about AF447 made me think back to that accident. The main debris field was only 600x200m, and that at a depth of 3,900 m if I am not mistaken. That ‘compact’ distribution (its an ocean !, and it was in the ITCZ! at that time, and...) still amazes me ... for that depth. Compared to that, relatively speaking, the QZ8501 sections are (figuratively) ‘miles apart’. More knowledge about this might help (even if we do everything to prevent crashes from happening) future searches.