From the report:
A routine download of the HUMS was performed on the evening of 27 December 2016 and the helicopter was released to service. A detailed analysis of the data, conducted after the accident, showed that the Tail Gearbox Bearing Energy Analysis limit had been exceeded on 27 December 2016.
CHC and it engineers are taking quite a grilling but I'm not sure that the report is clear enough to justify that. It does not state that they missed obvious limit exceedances or knowingly returned an unserviceable aircraft to service. It does however states that a "detailed" (not routine) analysis was conducted after the fact and it showed the aircraft exceeded the limit. This detailed anaylsis was probably conducted by a team of engineering/programming personal at Sikorsky. Also probably using different software/hardware then what was available to the engineer or operator at the time. It's a shame that these initial reports leave so much interperation. They seem to create more questions then provide answers. Kinda reminds you of the last major accident where the blame was quickly put on the maintenance staff .... Everything from rumoured test flights to washers/pins sitting in a guys tool box.
The imd_ground station, from what I understand, is what most are still using. The Sikorsky created Tool for monitoring this item is a pretty straight forward go-no go tool. Open the toolbar, look at the trend, insure it's not on the rise and that it's below the limit. Beyond that, there is a big green box with the letters "OK" in it if all is good. You don't really have to dig hard to find the info. There are several items that are closely monitored with their own deicated tools and I find it hard to believe that any operator are ignoring these items. Now, if the info inside the tool is not correct or as accurate as it could be, that's a manufacture issue.