I would find it very hard to believe that a near new A380, costing over US$300M would be written off, despite a long list of substantial damage.
Yes, the spar repair process isn't written up, because it's an entirely new plane, and nothing like this was specifically foreseen and planned for... but what's to stop the repair being carried out, and the process written up, as it's being done?
Let's see... despite all the aforementioned damage, the plane flew for a considerable period, under full control, and landed, still under control.
It wasn't a seat-of-the-pants, good-luck landing... it was still controllable. The fuselage is relatively undamaged.
There was no fire. Thus there is no heat-affected, or extensively-damaged-over-a-wide-area, style of damage.
Yes, there is a lot of damage to repair. Much worse damage has been repaired and the planes flew again.
QF VH-OJH cost $100M to repair. It was repaired and it flies again.
D-ABYU, a B747-230 Freighter of Lufthansa Cargo crashed at Kai Tek, suffering as much, if not worse damage than VH-OJH. It was repaired and flies again.
F-GITA, a B747-428 of Air France crashed at Papeete, suffering enormous structural damage. It was repaired and it flies again.
The A380 hasn't yet had a major incident... until now. Every incident with a new model adds to the learning curve. I don't think AB have designed the A380 to be turned into scrap, after one major incident. Yes, the trend is going that way with much manufacturing... but not with the worlds largest aircraft that boasts state-of-the-art engineering, and a brand-new design. I think what needs to admired, is that despite serious damage to a very complex aircraft, it landed safely, and there was no fire and no loss of pax. I don't know what else you could ask of an aircraft.
Airbus aircraft are no more susceptible to engine burst events than any other make, and the A380 has shown satisfactory durability after an engine burst event.
I will cheerfully wager it is repaired, and the model will continue to show durability.