A Maintenance Release cannot be relied upon as a guide to serviceability.
I know a bloke who put a lot of hours into preparing a consumers guide to purchasing a second hand light aircraft for CAsA at the invitation of the then Chairman of the Board, Dr Paul Scully-Power and Mick Toller after he bought a "dog" of an aircraft with a fresh Annual.
Same bloke was on the Board of Directors of AOPA and presented it to them for the members after CAsA "amended" the missive and put their version in their flight safety magazine. In short it was based on the then CAsA annual/100 hourly inspection plus some traps to be wary of.
Now some would suggest, but I can't recommend, one joins AOPA or asks someone who is a member to ask them for a copy of that guide. As a second suggestion I would suggest, but not recommend, one search the CAsA Air Safety Magazine for the "sanitized" official version. Apply what is in the original missive to the current "Annual Inspection" requirements and you should have a fair guide.
In conclusion, any LAME has a duty of care to the person who paid them and commissioned the inspection. If you buy any aircraft with "a fresh Annual" thrown in, the LAME that does that inspection has the duty of care only to that person who paid him.
In writing from the then Deputy Prime Minister, after a Commonwealth Ombudsman report, and with the advice of his advisers, a current maintenance release is not to be relied upon to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft. Go figure!