I am concerned that the view of phonics in this report goes beyond the limits of evidence and endorses "whole phonics". The very existence of the term "grapho-phoneme correspondence" shows that phonics will not tell a child all they need to know in order to read a word. We teach children that letters represent a sound, and that they blend these to read a word, as in c-a-t. This depends on the letters and sounds being in the same order. When they are not, as in table, the child can't blend. When a child finds a letter indicating a sound .it does not normally indicate, the child has no means of knowing whether it indicates the normal sound, or not, unless they have already learned the word. Eg, was.
The truth is, as Byrne in Castles et al showed, that phonics establishes the alphabetic principle - that we read words from their letters. This principle works in different ways in different languages, eg in French the very large number of silent letters used for grammatical connections. In English, mostly from French and Saxon influxes, some phonics are derived from other languages, so that phonics tells us most, but not all we need to know. Until this fact is recognised and understood,teachers following official guidance will continue to present phonics in a way that is both too simple, and too complex. Too simple, because it does not always work. Too complex, because giving lists of possible correspondences and expecting children to memorise and select the appropriate one is inconsistent with what we know of the development of their young minds.
Other aspects of the English review are excellent. This is an error. I've had no reply to attempts to raise the issue directly with Ofsted. The alternative is on this site.