Roger. I was discussing overruling non-aerodynamic factors that may even be easier to come up with. To point out a chance of no independently sufficent aero reason behind this all.
Quite likely a mix.
For your angle: Stall is high AoA and comes irrespective of speed.
At the extremes there would be a
(A) high energy accelerated stall from an abrupt manoeuvre where inertia and angle of incidence create the excess AoA.
and (B) a low energy stall, way behind the wrong side of power curve.
Both have in common the need for
- pitch down to reduce AoA
- wings level to reduce loading
next, we fly out with key parameters if applicable
- assure sufficient energy (thrust)
- effective wing (slats)
- low drag (spoilers)
- obstacle control (flightpath)
There need to be only one procedure for both A and B. Obviously slats don't work for A and would delay the recovery actions. The 2+4 above don't really mix.
For the secondary 4 items, I have deliberately used alphabetic order.
Try to sequence them to fit both A and B (or any mid-range case) at the same time so that you'd be happy about it.
Don't get me wrong, my hand is itchy about F1 too, but we practice slow speed stalls at FL100. As well I tend to reach for the speedbrake lever before the thrust, when levelling the wings. But writing a procedure needs to be more responsible than that.
Try hard as I might, I cannot justify any other sequence than the printed one.