On the first page, the pilot's response to the engine failure at 13:20 is generally appropriate. He pitches over at 0g, and you can see the FPV helmet cam moving upwards when as gets light in the seat.
Both the angular rates , establishing glide and in the flare, are very conservative. The flare was appropriate given what is (presumably) a highly-loaded wing with no flaps. He lost energy establishing glide with a ramp up in the pitch rate, which was not appropriate. This is not a particularly egregious mistake, since the 0g endpoint was correct.
The flare was well-controlled especially true given the high descent rate. There was no abrupt change in pitch rate to suggest panic. Broadly, he maintained positive control of the aircraft until touchdown. It was an excellent crash. He was not "lucky to have survived."
A (visually) steep climbout angle does not necessarily mean that it is inappropriate one.
From the parts in the video which I skimmed (9:00-13:00), my first impression is that the test pilots 'judgement was extremely poor. He presumably was alive and uninjured after the crash, and the FPV footage is a good learning experience, so thank you for sharing this. (Note: many pilots are uncomfortable at <1g flight conditions, and paradoxically many wings are very comfortable here!)
So the very clear difference between a professional test pilot and a guy hired because he can fly the plane and has some background with it seems obvious (...)
Elliot Seguin is awesome. I watch the all stuff he posts on his team's Instagram.