Catz...I simply see the Judges statement as though it contained a "double qualifier" relating to the failures to comply in the past. If I were to reword her comment to say "parties with a stake in the confirmation process" and it would be even more clear that it was her intent to subtly exclude the EC from the comment.
If she was going to be all-inclusive (those merely "mentioned" in the POR) as you are suggesting, then I believe she would not have gone through all the effort to say it as she has,...UNLESS she felt the need for the specificity.
As you mention, later on Judge Warath does include the EC but this implies to all actions moving forward by all parties who are expected to comply with examiner RFIs.
I think our Judge is VERY deliberate and to use my analogy, she is a master chess player.
Love ya man!
jest
NOTE: Do not make investment decisions based on the information provided in my posts; past, present, or future.
As Always: "Trust But Verify" -Ronald Reagan