If you cared to look at the foregoing posts you would see that i told of being 'briefed' (profession clue) to conduct the Inquiry into the crash of Army Nomad A303, not to investigate the design criteria etc. of the aircraft type generally.
In that event, is seems very strange that a supposedly independent professional, given the very narrow task you say you were given, would make the mistake of making these gross generalisations:
Almost everything negative written about the aircraft is utter dross. I ordered multiple tests of the aircraft and i flew one ... it was a seriously good aeroplane and had virtually no peer in its designed operational profile(s).