I would be VERY skeptical of the safety of a damaged and straightened frame being re-used. Once it's suffered a plastic deformation, it loses quite a lot of its strength.
It is a highly stressed structural component and N-V didn't find out until long after it went into production that it was more heavily stressed than the calculations (slide rule back then) had indicated. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough data to set the forces on the fatigue-test of the frame high enough for stronger brakes, and I quit N-V to emigrate before I got the high number of test cycles it would have taken to show a fatigue crack.
With that wimpy 2LS brake, the problem wasn't uncovered in testing. It wasn't until the after-market disk brakes, and Norton's production one, got the braking forces high enough to cause a problem. We'd seen fatigue failures on the AJS Stormer, specifically on the works team bikes. Its frame was very similar to the Commando, but with the top tube attached to the bottom of the head-stock. It cracked across the top half of the tube, just behind the stiffening gusset, rather than across the lower half like the Commando frames failed..
It's a shame that the redesign of the Commando didn't take the same idea as the Stormer instead of putting that ugly auxiliary tube in. On the Stormer, the top tube was split along the horizontal centerline and opened up at the front to be just slightly shorter than the full depth of the Head-stock. At the rear it ended up its original circular cross section. A long triangular filler was then welded into the opening between the top and bottom halves. The stress distribution was actually parabolic, but a parabolic top tube would have been very diffcult to make unless changed to a pressing.