Thanks Brendan,
For sure it would be interesting to see what outcomes were changed. Actually, even where he doesn't change the decision, it would be better if he said something along the following lines -"in my preliminary decision I had said blah, blah - upon reflection, there was no evidence to support this <particular> assertion - so the rationale of my preliminary decision has been reduced. Nonetheless, blah, blah, blah still applies, etc....."
After all, one can reasonably presume that some of the post preliminary decision submissions must be critical in nature but the level of detail of these submissions, that is provided in the final decision, does not give sufficient information to determine whether such criticisms are valid or not.
I don't think that it's a question of length either - my sense was that quite a lot of the material in the decision part of the report was, at best, of marginal importance.