It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
It is easy to come up with theories. We know that Malaysian Airlines are grotesquely incompetent, so topping off air for the cockpit can simply mean that this has not been done in a very long time and there wasn't enough.
We could also argue that Boeing is also grotesquely incompetent and that this is a Boeing aircraft. A defective computer is well within their capabilities, as we know. It would be just as possible to create all the known effects from failures relating to Boeing.
There are simply too many theories that fit the limited known facts, and no way to distinguish between them.
It won't help much if we find the aircraft. It'll be too deep to salvage and inspect what's left (which we know is dispersing) and black boxes these days are electronic not mechanical. A mechanical tape wouldn't record much data, but if can last indefinitely without power. Something like an SSD is only going to last a couple of years without power, and we're well beyond that.
But it's also possible the fragments have dispersed enough that there's not enough left to positively identify as an aircraft.
We needed to find the aircraft quickly. Yes, everyone did their best with what was available, but clearly what was available was insufficient.
Aircraft need to transmit more data more often, if we're to avoid a repetition of the hunt fiasco, and both manufacturers and airlines need to be held to higher standards if we're to reduce avoidable disasters.
In short, we need more data and more integrity.