One thing that seems odd to me...

"The visual impressions of runway 28R and taxiway C, while on approach to taxiway C, were clearly different, however, confirmation bias is a strong human factor overriding such visual impressions. The flashing X on runway 28L was not properly recognized, had the crew been able to identify the runway surface it is likely they'd have identified the flashing X correctly, the crew reported in post flight interviews it was all black to the left, the investigators stated therefore it remained unclear whether the crew had seen the flashing X at all."

and

"None of the following were factors in this incident: (1) flight crew qualifications, which were in accordance with Canadian and US regulations; (2) flight crew medical conditions; (3) airplane mechanical conditions; and (4) airport lighting, which met US regulations."

They seem to suggest the lighting wasn't sufficient to make it clear to the pilots that 28L was there. But then they say airport lighting was not a factor.

I thought there was some discussion upthread that if 28L had been lit up, this incident wouldn't have happened.

Sure seems like airport lighting was a factor.