SOPS you're talking BS. If SOPS were followed, EMW wouldn't have been a write off. Half the guys think the Co notam RAAS long landing after touchdown came as a result of EK521, it was there the morning the flight departed TRV. Part of "doing pilot stuff" is knowing your aircraft, and absolute least when in doubt; PITCH & POWER
200LR back up the blame game for a second there fella, what SOPs is saying is spot on, moreover its eminently sensible and safe.
I too have had a RAAS event that was on the face of it valid, but to me it was spurious, I elected to continue the landing, filed the paperwork and registered my concern with fleet/safety/Boeing technical pilots. Long story short, very few people where aware that RAAS referenced itself from the start rather than the end of the runway when the "policy" was written and I was vindicated along with others in suggesting that this is a tool, not a catch all.
Yet again unfortunately it's another case of unaccountable individuals embracing immature technology and making policy decisions at no risk to themselves whilst undermining the very experience and professionalism of the individuals who up until this managed to not over-run a runway.
This leads me back to what SOPs said, 200LR you must surely appreciate that procedures are there as a baseline, the piloting bit overrides all of that, and that piloting bit is presently being taught by an increasing number of "wood for the trees" trainers who themselves lack many of the key skills in areas of experience and airmanship that it will take a monumental effort to reverse, it's also clear to me that over reliance on technology is as much the culprit as is company culture, but the company at its core doesn't believe that either of these threats even exist.