As I've said before I think the rules are useful mainly to protect the organiser so far as is reasonably possible from the fallout after an incident. In this instance if the person in question had got in to difficulties somewhere on the course I dont see how any blame whatsoever could be levelled at the RO, so job done. But possibly only because the RO had the resolve and experience to do things properly by checking everyones kit, it might have been a much greyer area if they had just assumed compliance.
Although there has been some comment about the contradiction between personal responsibility (which we all want) and defined rules (which we dont want but accept as necessary, sometimes grudgingly) I think this can be resolved by accepting a necessary compromise - ie the basic requirements set by the RO/FRA/SHRA or whoever, which we will doubtless all disagree on but will in most cases comply with for all the reasons given in the earlier posts. This involves no personal responsibility whatsoever other than the basic requirement of doing what we are asked to, whether its taking the kitchen sink or just 'cag and a whistle'. But we then take personal responsibility over and above that for assessing a range of factors and deciding whether or not we should take extra kit and managing ourselves around the course - which might involve a whole range of decisions like the retirement mentioned above or not even starting on a particular occasion.