If you feel you don't need to base your assumptions on the entire report, or just can't be bothered to read it, then you are missing a LOT of facts.
And if you can't be bothered to read a point correctly and apply basic comprehension - quit posting.
I'll spell it out...
There are basic flight safety points to be deduced from the evidence presented in the summary. They are obvious to any professional aviator (as we both are/were) especially those trained to instruct/supervise/authorise (I was, I assume you were too).
Those basic lessons are both obvious and timeless - the detail does absolutely nothing to mitigate them in anyway whatsoever. It merely offers a much richer and deeper level of understanding of the actual events and contributing factors. Note also I refer
ONLY to basic/general (or high level, if you prefer) lessons - not one word about blame, or how the contributing factors combined to create the outcome.
If you don't know what general lessons I refer to, I'm slightly shocked and can only wonder at your agenda, since I believe your knowledge of airmanship, flight safety and human factors to be at least as good as mine.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
And now I'll depart and leave discussion those that want to debate the detail, comforted in the knowledge that regulations regarding air displays will be both strengthened and more rigorously enforced, thank goodness.