So we are satisfied that all of the certification authority that the FAA delegated to Boeing on the 787 were fine, except for the minor issue with the batteries? Shocked they have glossed over that one, it was pretty big news when it happened.
As for improvement for the 777X process, they need to specifically state what authority they want the FAA to claw back, failing that, just detail where the rules were broken. Or better yet, they along with the FAA just spend the time going over all the documentation in detail rather the relying on Boeing summaries.
I think the certification process is well defined.
The certification basis is usually already agreed at launch as well as the means of compliance.
Basically both the aircraft manufacturer (and suppliers) agree with the regulators on the certification basis and then the manufacturer (and also suplliers) agree on the way they should demonstrate compliance. Then the manufacturer (and suppliers) do exactly what is agreed and that's it.
The can be special conditions if there are features that are novelties. Basically, the regulators must work with the manufacturer on the feature(s) on what is meant by safe and then they agree on the way to demonstrate compliance to the special conditions.
Perhaps one day the special conditions could become regulators too.
I may have oversimplified the process, but that's the main thing.
For example, the basis for certification of the folding wingtips is in some special conditions. Both Boeing and FAA agreed on the safety criteria and then they agreed on the method of compliance.
The regulator doesn't do the certification. Boeing does the work, following the agreed means of compliance.
The principle is the same at EASA or TCCA or with any regulator.