A few thoughts ..
(a) a lot of the problem derives from older operational approaches to stall recovery. In general, the operational concern was stall near the ground (typically the usual stall turning final trick) where ground contact was a major concern.
(b) unfortunately, the operational folks evidently didn't make a practice of reading what the certification folks had to say and a disjoint arose.
It is useful to have a read of the flight test guide procedures
For heavies
For lighties
(c) likewise it is useful to read what the test folk have to say on the subject .. plenty of threads in PPRuNe, eg
Evaluating stall characteristics - best procedure?. In the present thread, one would do well to heed Safetypee's counsel .. he, amongst others in the certification side of the PPRuNe community, has a lot of runs on the board from which to draw when it comes to suggesting this and that.
(d) as has been observed, AF 447 was a bit of an Industry wake up call in respect to stall recovery and led to considerable training changes. This doesn't, necessarily, mean that height loss can be ignored .. but let's keep the concerns appropriate to the inflight circumstances. At day's end, the aim is not to die and one should be playing the risk cards in the best manner to achieve that desirable end goal.
(e) as to what target body angle might be appropriate, that remains a bit hit and miss in the absence of an angle of attack indication, or some other means of deducing that information from what is provided.