This was in fact an adaptive trial, including the jumping from phase 1/2 to 3.
That you think something other than actual adaptation is necessary, is just you.
This trial was run as it was BECAUSE that was the requirement at the time, but the rules changed and the regulators were open to changing the adaptive trial to address the very reasons for the requirements/guidelines/policies changing. And why would they not? To be FORMALISTIC? That would be nonsense and cause patients to lose out both in the trial and in the long-run. It would serve no policy interest to run a regulator like you suggest except as a punitive game playing entity, which, while there are those who believe that is what regulation is all about, is not my view either of why regulation exists nor about how the FDA or any of the other regulators operate, but particularly not the FDA and I think the MHRA as well, at the least.
The thing is, that you not only posit that the regulator is stupidly rigid, but it MUST be stupidly rigid to make your predictions real. That is not the case, and particularly not in diseases and conditions like GBM.