Even the best news outlets may not have the best information and it is very hard to understand deep technical details of this system without direct access to the experts and their data.
It's been mentioned in a past thread the work needed to post, perhaps only say, 300 words, in a readable and technically accurate form. The poster in mind must have spent many, many hours on input valued by this forum's contributors.
Even the choice of valid English words can be a challenge; that definitive Seattle Times summation used the word 'instrument' for what was obviously the AoA detector vane. While this is broadly correct, of course in aviation we are strongly biased to imagine an instrument as being a display device. I for one would find writing and proof-reading an entire documentary more demanding than I care to imagine. Add to this, information pouring in anew.
In the last months we've agonised over recorder details and not been totally sure about some of the readouts. The ANU electric trim input pulses being a case in point. Now, all this time later, there is the suggestion that some of the electronic processing may, just possibly, be inhibiting some vital inputs. Just imagine if this turns out to be true of the electronics in use at the time of the accidents. The pilot-competence v Boeing argument would become frighteningly weighted with a new bias. When findings radically move goal posts, it's easy to see how an entire chapter can be rendered obsolete.