A couple of points (lots of good discussion so far this AM)
The design of the aircraft has to consider system failures and mitigating actions. In most cases pilot awareness and reaction is presumed.
Annunciation is part of this and so is training and SOPs.
From a legal point of view its not unusual to claim
"but for".... the failure of etc.
From a safety point of view, as the user of the product, the real issues are
"in spite of"........ etc.
From a subset reliability point of view (how often you challenge the pilot) maintenance is important as in this case.
It isn't important where you lay the blame, it's only important to us what we are going to do about it.
BTW I still read in posts this AM the word
"stall" I didn't think that the aircraft stalled but only the stick shaker went off
