I would have personally greatly appreciated that he would re-iterate the statements made in writing a week ago, if only that.

I know that "we the public" will always find something wrong about anything that is released, once it is, but given how the community at large was mostly outraged by the "Billet Labs incident" and the "Madison incident" (as opposed, to, say, the lack of employee benefits or egregious errors in data); I believe it would have been a bit more tactful not to dismiss yet again the former point with "procurement/logistics did nothing wrong" (or something of that effect) and entirely failing to mention the latter.

A verbatim quote of

"Regarding the allegations Madison Reeves posted on Twitter, as already announced a week ago, we are taking the allegations very seriously. Our HR team has begun conducting a thorough assessment of the allegations. We've also already begun combing our personnel files and past notes and correspondences to see if we can corroborate any of what's being said. Furthermore, we will also be hiring an outside investigator to look into the allegations and will commit to publishing the findings and implementing any corrective actions that may arise because of this. When we are ready, we will release a statement. For now, we would ask that we allow our team the time they need be as thorough as possible."

(or a shortened version) in video form, would have been absolutely plenty.

This paragraph I quoted is already legally "potentially problematic" (since I'm sure the reddit LTT moderation team kept the emails featuring this content, coming from an address belonging to LMG), and would have really contributed to making a statement about their seriousness.

Too many times I have witnessed accused parties make written commitments, only to retract/redact them and swipe the whole thing under the rug as soon as the storm had passed. Adding it to such an important video would certainly have been a testament to their commitment. I want to believe that Linus, and the LMG management carefully weighted whether or not to include such a statement in the video; I just wonder what was the rationale for not repeating an already public, already legally "potentially problematic" statement.