AIBN could have clearly stated what they found and what was still missing in their initial version of the preliminary report. Instead of beating around the bush with some vague hints and suggestions.
Overall I don't see any new major findings in the revised preliminary that they couldn't have already put in the initial version, or am I missing something?
Looking at just the reports, some internet discussions and magazine articles, it seems like they let external pressure influence their work a little too much, reacting rather than acting. But I must admit that's a bit far-fetched without having way more insight into the process. Although I'm still startled by the fact that they let the journalists wander around the wreckage.