An interesting question, but clarification of why anyone would wish to identify these aspects as an isolated safety issue may help with a response.
There is rarely a single 'cause' in accidents. Many reports state probable cause and add contributing factors reinforcing the view that accidents involve many factors and the opportunity for them to come together.
Any views given will be with knowledge of the outcome and therefore will be biased. Our views and contributions depend on what we look for, and then this is what it usually found.
Oversight normally relates to the regulator, typically being cited as an error - hindsight; we like stating 'you should have thought of that before'.
Problems of compliance probably apply more to operators, and can be interpreted in many ways. It is difficult to establish exactly what an operator understood at the time of the event; what was required by compliance, what had the regulator seen, approved, or commented on. Whatever the situation was previously there may be little correlation with a later accident.
The AMS B737 Rad Alt error and MAD MD80 config warn failure are usually reported as 'human error', the crews did not comply with the requirements to monitor and check. However these accidents could be interpreted as issues involving oversight. The aircraft were certificated according to 'grandfather' rights, but with several previous indications of system problems and the availability of self monitoring equipment the regulator could have chosen to mandate a change of equipment. Compare this with the mandate to modify the pitots after ice crystal incidents - before the AF447 accident.