No, I don't think I do.
You're hinging your whole argument on a couple of lines from one report by the ORS done when there are plenty other reports out there to the contrary. Reliance on a single document at the expense of all others, and first hand accounts... you'd make a great Civil Servant.
The ORS didn't just miss Schrage Musik; they ignored it; which is why I referred to scarecrow. There's a reasonable account in Leo McKinstry's book on the Lancaster of Schrage Musik attacks, and how the 'scarecrow' urban legend came about to explain a bomber exploding mid air with no apparent attack.
There were reports of bombers being attacked from underneath as early as 1943 but it was ignored. Reports of crews seeing up to 15 bombers blowing up in one raid, with seemingly no attacks, ignored; they were told what they had seen were scarecrow shells. A special version of flak. All to try and keep the morale up.
The two guys I know that were in Lancasters that got hit by Schrage Musik tell (told in one case - RIP) stories that differ to the ORS report too. One kept the aircraft flying while it blazed away, long enough for the crew to get out. It eventually blew up - the bombs went off - as he was going out the nose escape hatch. It didn't just fall apart after getting hit by cannon fire.
The other had his aircraft and crew in a similar situation, and the fighter backed off to watch the Lancaster burn. It didn't back off far enough, as the rear gunner shot it down before leaving the aircraft.
You might want to also have a look through the excellent Lancaster at War books - there's an interesting series of photos showing a Lancaster with steel rods inserted into the wing showing cannon shell trajectories; originating from below. Again, the aircraft didn't fall apart around the crew.
Neither did all the aircraft that got hit by the same kind of cannon in conventional attacks - there are plenty of records of them getting back badly damaged. Are you going to tell me that Schrage Musik was specially designed somehow to make the aircraft fall apart as per the report whereas regular cannon wasn't?
In regards to escaping from the aircraft, you're still not telling me which hatch. The 'rear' one. On a Lanc you have the rear turret doors, the crew door (which is rather large) the two ditching hatches on the fuselage. Which one? and which one on the Halifax are we comparing it to?
The space afforded to crew in a Halifax has always been in its favour. But thats why it couldn't carry as big a payload isn't it? Which funnily, is what you want in a bomber. I'd argue getting to the hatch to get out is the biggest issue in abandoning a Lancaster against a Halifax, and probably why so many were lost. Spend a little money getting inside surviving examples of both, and you'll see why. It becomes even more apparent if you're wearing bulky clothing.
But if you want to bang away about Lancaster coming apart when hit, feel free. You have your opinion and I have mine; it won't change any, so there's little point arguing further.
Regards,
Rich