My one concern is that a comprehensive BoI would be a 2-3 year effort; is a more narrow and focused BoI with recommendations for resultant staff work more likely to deliver in a timely manner?
From a few other large fire investigations, there is typically an initial, fairly comprehensive push to figure out the timeline and the major factors, then follow up work to figure out and validate specifics (which may include full scale fire experiments). That will likely continue past the BOI and get appended later as an addendum.
Similarly, when there are big gaps found, they get pointed out and addressed immediately vice waiting for the BOI to finish. That's happened with some CAF investigations, as well as our allies and general civilian inquiries (like Grenfell) while people work through things. It's pretty painstaking, but rushing it means you'll probably miss key things and not actually address root causes properly.
There are a number of different options on the wildfire side that have been kicking around for a while, which include things to do before hand to reduce the fire risk, different tools to better suppress it (including airdrops from existing RCAF planes with zero mods), and better tools to fight it, but at the end of the day when something develops into a big front not really much you can do quickly other than get out of the way.
Running around and buying kit on a kneejerk doesn't make any sense, but once we get a good idea on the timeline, but is a lot more of a range safety procedure investigation with a fire component, vice a fire investigation, so maybe more SOP and guideline changes.
Sometimes though muiltiple factors just lines up in the worst possible way so won't be second guessing the actions of the folks on the ground that day.
.
