Alty, the only information I have is that gained through PPRUNE. I get the point re: the difference between stall/flame-out, fiscal as it may be in the light-hearted context I wanted to convey in that part of the post.
I still think that both the airframe and engine manufacturer passed the test here. As I wrote in the previous post, no regulator nor designer can ever hope to forecast all the possible events that their product might encounter, be it through freak environmental events or crew mis-handling.
Yet, the crew/aircraft/engine combination recovered well and we have a new opportunity to learn without the dire task of counting bodies.
Could Airbus have advised about this type of event beforehand knowing the history of the 747-based CF-6? Maybe... but again it is not an identical engine in all respects, so it may not have been an obvious choice as you seem to imply. After all, we have the benefit of hindsight, which as the saying goes, is always 20/20 vision!