Great Bear
Greetings once again. I have taken note of what I consider to be the first (and serious) part of your posting. The second part I will answer first. A popular (reality?) event might work, and I don't doubt the potential for profit. Even Cousteau was an accomplished Capitalist, eh? The sad truth is that if people won't take their safety seriously, Aviation cannot change.
There is absolutely no excuse for a widebody blessed with the finest powerplants, engineering, pilotage and electronics to have an incident over water, leave alone an accident.
Galley: The tray cabinet and the kitchen module cannot look like they do and have survived an impact entertained by the BEA. It is not possible. Some circumstance of hull ejection (at altitude) of cabin parts easily explains the lack of catastrophic damage to these parts.
Spoiler: The damage evident again argues against a flat impact on the Sea. The characteristics of aerodynamic destructive forces are unmistakable.
FA seat bulkhead veneer: Once again, a part that shows no damage to speak of other than separation from its mounts.
Cabin liner: This is harder to suss, its shredded state could be indicative of impact stresses, but it has failed along the line of the Ports/windows.
If the hull split open, it is reasonable to assume that the area above the "window Line" parted the upper cabin from the portion merging at the Floor/Hold line.
There are dozens of other "conclusions" available.
I simply repeat what I have maintained all along. Where there is "commentary"/conclusion by BEA, it is supportive of earlier "unfounded" (to my belief) conclusions they made, absent the mention of any evidence that would disagree, or not solidify "The best decisions available". (Politically).
bear