Now with two separate threads running (R&N and Technical Questions) I'm not sure where to post repsonses. If I were reporting News or Rumor I would have thought here. However I were to respond to an technical analysis and discussion of this news I would have thought in the thread running in the technical section.
Perhaps the moderators can sort this out.
The ACARs is not a crash recording device and its useful information is appropriate mainly to post flight maintenance actions. Somewhat akin to the FADECs on engines. However those that design and configure the particular device (AF & Airbus) may be able to work the design configuration logic tree way beyond our simple guestimates.
Significant to me is the suggestion that ACARs confirms a change in flying logic that would compel the pilot to read his base instruments and fly the aircraft in a controled manner while in turbulence.
I believe that most pilots would have preferred that the aircraft fly itself while in turbulence.
If the reversion in flight control law was turbulence alone (no initial structural failures) then it is important to consider whether the aircraft was allowed to operate outside its design envelope (flight speed). If the airspeed was not controlled sufficiently this could have led to upset and flutter failures and ultimate beakup over a time period.
Unfortunately investigations along this line will require more than the recovery of a few bits of debris.