I'm sure any weakness could be corrected, or better explained. But few readers will miss the central point, that it does not contain allegations or supposition, being based on MoD's own statements, and practices Vs policies. Not least, as Chug points out, the Service Inquiry's statement that there was no safety case report. This in itself is a bit of a weak statement, because it doesn't actually say Martin Baker had not compiled a safety case. My guess is they did, but just weren't under contract to maintain it, or under directed sub-contract to BAeS to contribute to the whole aircraft safety cases for all Mk10 users. In other words, exactly the same situation faced by the Nimrod IPT Leader in 1999. But in this case, the IPTs (S&AD and Hawk) had, apparently, passed rigourous MAA audit in the past year; whereas in 1999 it was known and accepted by senior staff that safety cases were not funded properly, the entire process being a bit hit and miss. The SI report does comment on this, but stops short of open criticism. As ever with SI reports, it is very light on events that led to factors and cause.