A lot of these issues already addressed Noel.
Making rules "tighter" does not make them in any way more effective, but it can give more legal exposure.
Runners have to choose their own kit, see my "safety words" thread, for why. (still a minimum enforced) That is what would make it safer.
It wasn't the rules that caused a problem, it was lack of controlled procedures.
Ask them to show you the evidence.
Good RO already have procedures that second check finish count, by a variety of means, and counting them through in a multitude of ways. If it already works why fix it? And depending on how they do that, changing rules just causes problems. It may sound small, but in Wynns case demanding all retirees report to the RO makes for a problem,..she has several races hands on managed by different people, so she is not the one to call. Big races have a team tasked with different processes. The key is making sure right hands know what left hands are doing so nothing falls down a crack, not forcing one person to do the lot.
And that means in essence quality control of a race plan.
Safety is not about what happens 99.99% of the time.
It is about managing the 0.01% often lost in poor communication or tasking, or not enough thinking about "what if"
By way of example..
Chances are if there is a fatality at a road crossing, it will not be because the RO did not think of signage for it, indeed he almost certainly already does, or even the absence of a rule saying it should be done (which is obvious to anyone with an IQ of a mothball or greater). It will be the lack of a clear written task for an identified person to do it, who has signed up to say they will, and the supervision to make sure they did. The RO will think someone is doing it because of a half remembered conversation, and a resulting misunderstanding, the road has ended up unsigned. That is why many accidents happen in practise. Mushy instructions and communications. Not the absence of rules.