Just a thought for the culture club here:
How many years or decades did it take the "Western" airlines and cultures (and for that matter military cultures) to address cockpit gradient and develop other CRM concepts and tools that are now industry standards?
How much effort went into that, and still goes into that? It didn't just happen.
One of the challenges inherent in this progress is a bit of a paradox: the Captain bears ultimate accountability for the conduct of his flight. This won't change any time soon, and so the balancing act has to be dealt with as an ongoing challenge for any captain/aircraft commander. It takes effort and development of some of those "people skills" that don't fit nicely into boxes and checklists.
As we used to say about a lot of thing: "If this stuff was easy, anybody could do it."
Back to the accident at hand: if there were confusing indications of what was wrong with the #2 engine, wherein the interpretation of what the engine and its instrumentation were telling the crew, what were they? If it was enough to induce the captain to command the good engine to shut down, the community who fly this model of aircraft would likely benefit from understanding that anomaly.
Possible CRM issue: when you both can't agree on what's wrong with the engine ...
When available, a CVR transcript might be very educational.