It's always interesting to read these kind of detailed reports.
One thing that came to mind was the OPS takeoff data with only 897 feet of stopping margin. Would that sort of margin, particularly on a wet runway (even though the crew stated that it appeared that the runway was dry), ordinarily prompt you to go with a max power setting as opposed to reduced? I've only used tabulated runway analysis for the past 12 years, which doesn't supply margin info (at least not directly, anyway) and rely on more gut feel on what takeoff power to use, except of course in cases where max is required by the COM.
The only other thing was that the report didn't discuss why the captain didn't use reverse thrust. Uncertainty as to which engine was the problem is about the only thing I can think of, but it's still odd especially given that Kalitta's procedures dictate it's use, and despite that fact that use of reverse isn't considered in reject performance. All four engines at reverse idle, even with one shelled, could have changed the dynamics quite a bit as to how fast they might have been going upon leaving the runway.
