I'm really not. While EF5-consistent contextual damage did occur in Bremen, it at no point overlapped with any construction that would qualify for EF5. Those were CMU foundation homes in Bremen, which recent EF scale presentations and surveys have established as non-eligible for EF5. You can't just say "Ok the construction here was good, but the context was lacking (Cambridge Shores), but elsewhere there was insane contextual damage, but poor construction was present (Bremen). The two criteria didn't overlap, but close enough." Those two criteria absolutely HAVE to overlap in at least one area along the path for EF5. That didn't happen at any point along the path of the Mayfield tornado.
Was Mayfield/Bremen an EF5? Almost certainly. Did it produce damage that met the criteria for BOTH construction and contextual support in at least one area? No it did not. There's a difference between a tornado that was clearly capable of producing EF5 damage, and tornado that actually produces damage that meets the EF5 criteria. Mayfield falls into the first category, but not the latter.
Had this one occurred on 4/27/2011, it may have had a shot, but the days of context-based EF5s are over, meaning won't have another Rainsville type EF5 where a bunch of frail CMU foundation homes were obliterated, but they go with EF5 rating based on context. Do I agree with that? Not really, but I don't set the standards or make the rules when it comes to EF scale application, and I do understand the disqualification of CMU foundation homes from EF5 eligibility.