Welcome

That is not how I understand delay information here, also per GM1 CAT.OP.MPA185. "Delay information" in the context of impeding minimum fuel is different from "anticipated delays" and refers to the expected delay communicated by ATC to a specific aircraft. Compare ICAO Annex 6 Part I - 4.3.7.2.1 and PANS-ATM - 12.3.1.3 MINIMUM FUEL (Appendix 1 to AMC1 SERA.14001 General - 1.1.3).
EASA's intent by accepting other sources of information than ATC was for the rules to become more performance-based and allow for the use of future technologies, whereby the pilot may obtain information about possible delays from reliable sources other than ATC.
A NOTAM or special AIREP certainly does not meet the accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity requirements per GM1, nor does it contain expected delay information.
This is more of a provision to allow for example for a data link based solution provided by the ANSP (maybe even from EUROCONTROL).
SIB 2018-08 and ICAO Doc 9976 - 6.7 REQUESTING DELAY INFORMATION FROM ATC explain this all very well.

Interest…

STBY for further info, as needed.

Unfortunately, "aerodromes with a known high proportion of delays to traffic" is not always the case. Maybe operators with scheduled flights may have the data to determine what are those airports and mitigate the risk of exceeding the FDP accordingly.
On the other hand, there are operators conducting not scheduled flights, and on one day there is a delay of approximately 1 hour due to ground handling agent delays, and on the other day there are zero delays.
Operators do not always have the data and resources to mitigate the FDP exceedances.
Also, as the SIB and this article indicates, all organizations (operators, GH, aerodromes, etc) are understaffed and the resources are limited. Even if, there are identified aerodromes by the operator that may lead to flight duty period exceedance, is it always possible by the operator to hire additional pilots/cabin crew just to overcome this delay, which in many instances is within 60 mins?
I understand the importance of adherence to regulations and safe operations and I do not want to underestimate them, but limiting the commander's discretion may not always be the solution to this problem.
Probably, the ORO.FTL's AMCs and GMs should be reviewed by EASA.

Hi Gilles, we are an SPO operator who want to use Derogation Article 6(8) for our ferry flights with our SC7 Short Skyvans (complex motorpowered aircraft MTOW 5650kg). our national authority insists that we can not use it because we are SPO operators but ferry flights are defined as non-commercial operations and the derogation is for non-commercial operations. Now I am looking for fellow SPO operators who are actually using this derogation for ferry flights.