Come on, guys! Let's at least give newbie credit for knowing something about law and courts; it is his profession.
All kinds of analysis, including analysing the sounds on a recording and what they might meant, are admissible in evidence. Usually, it requires the analyst turning up in court and verifying that the piece of evidence is, indeed, hisher analysis and explaining hisher conclusions. And it requires that the piece of evidence (the analysis) satisfy the rules of evidence, which suffice to ensure for example that the presented analysis is indeed of the CVR of the actual accident being discussed and not of some other accident, or a simulation, and so on.
Whether the court believes anything of what is said is, of course, entirely another matter.
Newbie wants to leave open the possibility that the signal recorded on the FDR and interpreted by the FADECs may have had some other cause than that the thrust lever was left voluntarily near the CL detent. That is his privilege. Let us please recognise that, at this stage, nobody has the evidence to contradict him.
PBL