Do I really need to?
You talk about BEAs monitored approach but the version I flew had split duties with PNF playing with the levers.
I had dinner with two of my course mates a fortnight ago and both had bent BA aircraft on landing...one was because PNF didn't operate the throttles correctly.
I operated a complete monitored approach in SR with a continue faze down to 100ft - hand flown of course. Now that was a slick operation.

I still don't understand. You say my posting missed something significant out and imply I am therefore misleading people. Let's just be clear about this. Other posters have asked when and why this concept came about in BEA. I just posted (without significant comment) an official source showing it goes back to the 1940s, and what that source's concept was. It's a general principle for minimising "pilot errors" in visual transition for landing, and for improving the reliability of internal crew monitoring and crosschecking during approaches in general. Summarised as perhaps "It's safer if the pilot-in-charge is Pilot Monitoring not Pilot Flying, until a safe landing on required visual cues can be achieved".

You are for some reason now adding in that I have some obligation to satisfy YOU with details of one specific aspect of aircraft handling (thrust lever management), because an operator that used this principle ALSO at one time had a thrust management procedure that you didn't like. The pros and cons of that are a separate issue and would be applicable regardless of whether these principles are in use or not, i.e. for "pilot-in-charge monitored" or "conventional" approaches.