Perhaps I am misperceiving the problem or the characterizations of "SOPs", but in a final analysis, aren't SOPs the purview of the airline?
By this I mean that the manufacturer will have a set of SOPs for their product based upon their obvious in-depth knowledge of their product but I've found at least with Boeing's products that SOPs and in particular, explanatory notes as to how or why something works the way it does, very sparse, and in the past have seen my own and other airlines modify SOPs to fit the culture they have built and consider 'normal'. Airbus on the other hand do seem to provide far greater details and prescriptions for SOPs and between what I had used on the Airbus prior to retirement was coincidental with what Airbus had issued.
This is more for a historical perspective for those who believe that SOPs are strict rules which must slavishly be adhered to in all circumstances rather than "formal guidance" for the knowledgable and experienced.
I have to say, 302hrs isn't nearly sufficient "time-in" to provide a basis for comprehending the nuances of transport work, let alone appreciating and placing the observations in the AAIB Report or even responding the verbal call, "pitch!" quickly enough. It IS indeed a factor in this incident and not discussing I think is a disservice to the maturing of the cadet process.