To me this all boils down to a very simple set of questions. We have an airframe with a known set of technical issues which were easily managed on the previous flight. Those known issues should have generated a very specific review of certain procedures and been addressed in detail in the preflight planning/brief.
So...
1) were the memory items and checklist briefed prior to takeoff as would be expected?
2) was the problem identified in a timely manner and were the memory items and checklist preformed in a timely manner?
If the airplane was in fact being flown utilizing pitch and power and suffered a loss of control then we have one set of issues. If an attempt to re-engage the AP was made you have a totally different scenario. Do we have any clear information on how the previous flight was conducted after recovery? Was the AP reengaged or did the FO
hand fly the plane? What would the normal intent be for the PIC in these circumstances given the previous issues. If you (the professional captains here) were conducting the preflight brief would your stated intent be to return in the event of a technical issue or to troubleshoot and continue? To me the logical mindset would be to return but
what is the SOP here? Would the thinking be identical to the previous flight where the issue was addressed very quickly and the PIC determined that it was both safe and prudent to continue the flight as scheduled?
How long did the trouble shooting take and what was the configuration for the remainder of the flight (was it flown raw data?). Would this information be readily available to the crew in this flight? Was there a pressure to meet this standard and continue? From what I recall the previous flight declared an emergency but then pressed on. Could the
same scenario have been playing out where even though a request to return was made that there was no real intent and that the upset occurred when they attempted to duplicate the previous flights configuration?
Obviously something catastrophic occurred very quickly. If they felt they had addressed the issue and had the intent to press on would attempting to re-engage the AP and then having it spit the bit be more likely or would manually flying at the prescribed settings and being distracted while trying to troubleshoot be more likely? I'm guessing that the CVR will show that
they were trying to continue the flight instead of having a 100% focus on configuring the plane for a return.