I have not read about the 'fresh water' but surely it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that if it is deduced that 2 out of 3 probes 'failed' and it was again 'reasonably' assumed that freezing of water was the cause of this unlikely event, that it would be 'fresh water'?
I come back to the point I and others have made. Because of the 'trust' that appears to have been ingrained into AB pilots in the past (although I suspect people are slightly more wary now) that the wonder jet will protect you, it appears that this crew 'assumed' the same mental state. The low speed protections will activate. These protections, despite the denial of some, incorporate AoA readings. AoA readings/inputs are TOTALLY un-necessary for the operation of an aircraft, AB included. Why fight the simple suggestion that when a system vital in the mantra of the aircraft operation is compromised, that the crew are told CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY? Then they can resort to relying on basic flying skills (if they have any - see other thread) to fly to a safe landing. Is this not 'a reasonable technical discussion'? Certainly not a 'requirement' that is 'currently infeasible'.
I hope the AB training system, which has been so faulty over history, being behind many aircraft losses, has finally caught up. "It's an aeroplane, Brian". "Aeroplanes bite fools."