The unstated allegation is that they weren't hired for a warm endorsement, but to assuage the regulator and the public.

If that were true, you could expect certain things, such as casting blame towards folks who have left for company culture, or framing issues with informing the regulator as technical difficulties (eg, instead of deliberate malfeasance).

That the resulting report aligns with such expectations isn't proof - but it might raise an eyebrow here or there.