Without sounding like a smart ass (not what I'm trying to do), It doesn't say common sense.
Personally, if I used common sense with most of these guys, I'd have to go back to flying planes because I would have been terminated. It only takes getting burned once to not fall into that trap again. Common sense and assuming are pretty close relatives.
Diverting from the original post for a moment...
Me: N123, verify you have information Alpha.
Somebody: We have Alpha.
Me: N123, verify that was you that had information Alpha.
Me: N123, with your call sign, verify you have information Alpha.
N123: N123 HAS...ALPHA!
Basic flying 101 and somehow I'm the bad guy. But when this guy crashes, guess what the first question is. "Did he have the ATIS?". If I left it alone with just the first two transmissions, there is no way to prove it was N123 that had Alpha. The reason he crashed is irrelevant, it was my fault, I didn't do my job. Seems dumb, but that's ATC. You could say "He was the only aircraft on my frequency." but there is no way to know that. You can't prove it. "I recognized his voice." Lawyer: "Are you a voice recognizing expert?" (I'm sure they have a much more professional name
That's just the tip of the iceberg of daily ATC life. It happens on every transmission. Definitely more than just people talking
I encourage all the listeners to listen for these kinds of things next time they are tuned in. Listen for runway read backs. Listen for call signs being used, or not being used. Pretend you are a lawyer and have nothing but tapes to go off of...assume the worst happens, can you prove the pilot/controller was right/wrong just by the tapes? That's all you get to use.
So! Going back to the original tape in this thread. Correct, the pilot did not read back the instructions correctly, correction is required. This is part B of the .65 section you quoted, cessna157.
Seems trivial I know. Just hoping to bring an ATC side of things to the table is all. I enjoy the site.