The issue that intrigues me, is that every aviation regulatory body for every country in the world which allows Airbus to fly into it's airspace subscribes to the infallibility and redundancy of the Airbus Alpha floor protection system.
Otherwise the performance figures based on 1.12Vs (versus 1.3Vs of all standard flight control variants) wouldn't be accepted as the basis for the certified flight manual performance figures.
If it is a requirement for an Airbus rating to fly the alpha floor recovery, and the terrain avoidance maneuver actually by default calls one to fly into alpha floor, how could the integrity of the system be called into question?
The pilot's very probably had done hundreds of Alpha floor recoveries in the simulator and known at what stage of the deceleration the autotrim should have locked out and when alpha floor / TOGA lock kicks in. Why did they continue to decelerate below the paper VLS?
Surely the FAC's would have a comparator logic to cross reference other flight parameters with the AoA vanes and not just rely on a single similar sensor cross check?
If it's proven that the stall protection system is deficient in it's certified abilities, does Airbus and all the operators of airbus variants have to amend the performance figures (read weights) of the aircraft?
The problem as I see it isn't that the maneuver was carried out at less than the described altitude, but that the system has proven to be fallible.