In any case I submit that we lack adequate knowledge to criticize the window installation as inadequate. I further submit that we lack evidence to support that the covering was needed as a reinforcement feature.
All of which means that we may lack a rational reason for supposing much about the nature of bracing, etc. except as to how we believe it reasonable to stiffen such a panel, were we to install it. We also must realize that we were not there to supervise. And, as inadvisable as it may be as a practice, we also have to accept that we may have a case of no such bracing having been installed in this instance.
I submit we lack adequate knowledge to claim the patch had no bracing. I see evidence of a rivet row in the Miami take off picture. Some see no evidence of rivets in any picture. I offered the contrast between new and existing skin as a possibility that the patch is washing out evidence of rivets.
Since we don’t know why the patch/cover was done for sure, I think all possibilities should still be considered until we do know. It may help find a better picture or an answer either way. I think all questions are important. When it was done, where it was done, who did it, why it was done are important because they are avenues for investigation. I think the "when" and "where" are resolved and "who" did it is limited to a strong candidate.
My previous post referred to the
possibility that the window was an area of weakness and pointed out some things you did not mention but to consider when comparing the standard window to the added window. I’m open to it being a simple cover which I have no problem with. If the stringers are where they are in the artifact, I don’t think they fully fixed the structural problem I think might have existed anyway. I do think the work done is related to the hard landing based on timing. It might be a gap that caused a leak and needed a special joint at the top, a cracked window that needed to be covered, or something else. Again, I’m considering all possibilities.