The reports does not explain how well they knew to fly a go-around. On the contrary, it does show they were not proficient to execute one in complex circumstances. Neither of the two situations you describe should have been allowed to happen, that's why standards exist. Passing the grade in the SIM but failing to perform when the day comes reeks of a dysfunctional training system, where the objective is not well understood.
Responsible reaction needs to take form of a preventive measure that - if sent back in time and applied to the incident crew involved - would had prevent the situation. In thorough agreement with your implied "but you cannot change a man or ultimately predict his reactions once he snaps", it's either the hardware, training or procedures that need focus.
+ Aircraft is capable of executing it on it's own, just keep the AP on.
+ The SOP for G/A works well and cannot be made any more simple. TOGA+flaps. Read FMA and adjust the targets, then gear up and call ATC.
+ If the situation stinks of going missed, perhaps a mini review is prudent. I started doing exactly that after the last one.
+ Training change is possible in two ways, more exercises or stricter evaluation.
Which one is it?
My money is on what sonicbum suggested. But most definitely they have not practised it hundred times in simulators or real life. "Done quite a number in the SIM, but never a real one on the type." - sounds more like it.
https://www.bea.aero/fileadmin/user_...20-0065.en.pdf