Taking the “Investigations” subheading out and making everything part of the “Aftermath” section works.  I see that you have changed the reference and the content in the sentence beginning “[t]he report did not address…”, addressing my OR concerns for that sentence.  Breaking the large amount of content on the US and ROK investigations into smaller sections works, but I’ve retitled the Further investigations section to accurately reflect its content, which is criticism of the US report and a couple sentences of evidence supporting that criticism. 
 :I’m still concerned about original research in the first several sentences of the “Additional criticism” (Further evidence) section.  Did Pat Sloyan’s 19 January 2001 report criticize the joint statement of mutual understanding for failing to assert that no orders were given to shoot civilians?  Did his report say that the joint statement should have included this assertion because that was a central finding of the US military report? 
 
 :Breaking up the Legal framework section works.  You’ve undone much of my reorganization, and while I prefer my version, I won’t pursue this further.