There is a difference between our understanding of what happened, rather than the received view, and a teleological justification of events.
Yes, the 1980s RAF plan would have been challenged by the end of the Cold War. I am fascinated by STOVL, but it is no panacea (although the RN would have been happier). However, the issue is how to make a decent requirement, and I think that is harder than it was - they could, until 1985, turn on a sixpence yet still have a depth of information and understanding of the implications of a change. You can see that break apart in the late 1980s, and long-winded studies emerge. That benefited no one.
The event was supposed to be mainly historic, not policy, so the paper is very light on the latter. I would sum it up though as 'it ain't what you do it's the way that you do it, that's what gets results'.
There are many current claims about UK experience with Typhoon etc. based on the technologies in it. I would say understand the world they emerged from better in order to know if such claims are relevant.