The other reports suffer from the same problem -- they're focused on whether paperwork was filled out correctly. That's not what killed the project. To the extent these reports are read, I think they lead people to focus on the wrong things.

I think the IG reports would be much better if they just did the following: interview the engineers who worked on the original version. Ask them what the problems were. Then, interview the engineers (from both the "tech surge" and the contractors) who lived through the process of getting the site working. Ask them what changed. Write those things down.