Referring only to the photos and drawings provided in this thread ('cause I know little about this type). The rod with the eye end can be seen projecting up behind the rotor blade. The eye end is obviously not connected to anything in the photo, and does not display damage [from separation].
The drawing, and photos in posts 200 & 212, show the transmission attaching rods, as they are installed. These rods show a connection from the top deck of the fuselage to the upper case of the transmission. They show that the eye end of the rod attaches to the transmission, while the fork end attaches to the deck.
If the photo of the rotor with the rod projecting up were showing us a disconnected transmission rod, the disconnection has happened at the transmission, because that's the end with the eye? If the rod had disconnected at the deck, we'd be seeing the fork end in the photo, if it were that rod?
If we are seeing the eye end of the transmission rod in the photo on the ground, that would mean that the rod got to that location with the transmission and deck, or there were two disconnects, and we are seeing only one end. But the chances that the rod disconnected at both ends, and then ended up there, seem extremely low to me. If that rod disconnected from the top of the transmission by force upon ground contact, having fallen with it, I would expect it to look much more damaged than it appears.
No speculation as to what happened on my part, just considering what appears to me in the photos. I would expect that the investigators have much more on this already, having more than we can see in the photo.
