It has nothing to do with "conspiracy", dear Dani and others. It is simple that AI's design philosophy has sometimes a few "hidden" (from the pilot and others) features incorporated that make sense under normal operation, but may lead into problems in others.
The remarkable thing is that AI keeps these things as a secret to pilots. I always recall a senior member of the management, telling me in regards to their reduced V1 calculation: "We (AI) did not make any publicity about this fact as we are safety minded and we would like the pilots to ignore that they have a more safety margin."
Well, keep the pilots in the dark is not a good idea, as this case proves again.
So in regards to design of flight controls and protection features I prefer the conventional approach, where I am and I stay in command and the aircraft doesn't "think" for itself. Aircrafts and specially the ones from AI are not so very good thinkers and what is even more a problem: those who designed certain features do not see the entire picture of the operation under sometimes very special conditions (gusts and x -wind just being one). It is not okay, and has never been, when I as PiC have to start thinking in such a special situation how I could get around the computers. There is no time for that, specially not in turbulence or x-wind conditions with gusts.
So I wonder if AI birds now will get a more stringent gust and x-wind limitation. Probably not, and as usual they may shift the responsibility to the pilots...