The only thing that seems to be reasonably clearly confirmed is what we all knew all along, which is that HMRC's argument that any work related contract of any kind is enough for MOO is patently nonsense (or at least that bit of the UT's decision does not seem to have been criticised by CoA in para 95).
That said, whatever MOO is or isn't, it seems MOO's absence is not determinative and you must consider all other factors regardless per para 119.
It's been remitted to FTT to decide. Good luck to anyone who can make sense of this and apply it accurately to any particular facts. What a mess and how on earth is the CEST tool supposed to figure this out if these judges can't?