If I may...
A key understanding in philosophy and to a lesser extent, linguistics is, speakers of different languages "see" the world differently - direct translation is therefore not possible - "equivalency" is not possible.
Who would have thought that what many would have considered a straightforward phrase such as "ligne de vol", (which I took literally as "line of flight" which meant a more or less flat attitude because that is the way the airplane "is" when in flight, but descending in a vertical trajectory, "stalled but with little yaw") could be interpreted in so many ways. It teaches us that language is a huge part of our "reality" and not just a tool for communication. (if that's what it is, it's doing a very poor job).
The disagreements on the BEA language, the interpretation of "spin" and "flat", the abiding reservation or assured bravery with which "facts" and causal chains are entered, all have less to with what happened than with language. In this sense, the original, French BEA is not the "defining" document but nor is any translation into any other language. It is one document written very much in the manner in which the discussion has unfolded here. We may be certain that the strong views and disagreements are solid, primary factors in this report and in any other accident report. Whether truth emerges is a matter of such dynamics, not a matter of what actually happened. We are profoundly human and cannot escape interpretation - we are always "inside" interpretation because there is no "fixed" referent outside us which language may "call upon" and upon which we would all agree.
We might say that this is trivially obvious - until we run across genuine, serious, deep disagreements on words whose only commonality is the spelling of them.
Back to lurking in the FCOM...
PJ2