Well there you go, I was ground side Marine Corps for four years. No comment from a superior can pass unacknowledged. Indeed we view the air wing as a place where standards are lax and you live an easier life.
Although it seems the military metaphor of Two Generals' Problem which I assume you're referencing is incidental, it's ironic that in the actual military all communication from superior to subordinate must be acknowledged perfunctorily, at least in very disciplined services like the United States Marine Corps.
For example, if a sergeant says to a private "It's a nice day outside.", the private is obliged to respond, even if the statement is rhetorical. This leads to perfunctory responses, in this case it would be "Aye aye sergeant", or "Aye sergeant", or more casually "Er" or "Kill". You're not obliged to agree, just to acknowledge. Pretty similar to tapback responses in messenger apps and emails.
Fair enough, I phrased it inaccurately, although “likely” is subjective. I should say it’s reasonable to conclude that the results could be due to chance alone. At any rate the results do not tell us that anyone, in fact, benefited from vitamin D supplementation with respect to CVD risk.
It would likely be unethical to conduct a study to determine whether CVD risk is affected by vitamin D supplementation in those with vitamin D deficiency, because if you determine that study participants are vitamin D deficient then it is indicated to treat them regardless of impact on CVD risk. Thus the trial does not attempt to do such a thing, focusing only on a general sample, excluding anyone in whom vitamin D supplementation would be contraindicated.
Ultimately while it would be interesting to know if CVD risk is reduced with vitamin D supplementation in those who are vitamin D deficient, it is largely an academic question as those individuals should be taking vitamin D supplements anyway.
The issue is that with this result we cannot say that anyone was helped. The results are consistent with a null finding—that any effect measured is likely due to chance alone.
Why would that be interesting? Presuming the effect of limited sun exposure is posited as vitamin D deficiency, that is already an indication for supplementation, regardless of any effect on CVD risk reduction.
The purpose of a study like this would be to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is indicated for CVD prevention independent of vitamin D deficiency, which is why the study recruited from the general population, excluding only those in whom vitamin D supplementation would be contraindicated.