In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past...

And this is justification for disallowing "unsupported" FRs from
being used for world records? The logic of this escapes me.

Obviously, a pilot seeking a world record is motivated to carry
the best possible recording equipment -- the FR least likely to
produce homologation headaches after the flight.

However, the pilot should be free to choose any approved FR, at
his own risk. The issue is cheat-proof, not hassle-proof.

If the pilot's claim is made more difficult by the
unavailability of the FR manufacturer, then so be it. A glitch
in the flight log should be treated the same as a barograph
failu rejection of claim. If the glitch can be circumvented
by a manufacturer still in business, then the pilot is fortunate
(the particular circumvention would still have to be approved by
the homologating body).

Here's an analogy:

The pilot is the plaintiff. It is the his responsibility to
make his best case for a world record. The FR manufacturer (if
any) is an expert witness hired by the plaintiff.

The IGC is the court. They judge the evidence and make a
ruling. GFAC is a technical advisor to the court.

It is wrong for the court to insist on the makeup of the
plaintiff's team.

-Pat