Machinbird;
I thought long and hard before deciding to criticize the "Loss of VS at altitude as a causal factor" approach to this accident. I don't see this line of thought as developing anymore, it only operates in a 'restatement' mode in my view. The same old concepts are paraded out and restated. More jello nailed to the wall.
Yes, understand. No criticism intended of your post because I believe the view expressed is on the right track, not because "I" don't like the other theory, but because the evidence has not led us to that conclusion.
If the evidence for loss of the VS sometime before impact, (and if not at altitude as the precipitating event, why is any other scenario important short of 'attached at impact' ?), were incontrovertible and argued as such, no problem, but it has not and the pursuit is, as you state, no longer productive in terms of finding out what happened and how the aircraft actually hit the water.
What is the simplest explanation for the seeds of this accident? Where did the series begin? What failed and where in the series to intervene in the causal paths and permitted "the next step" to proceed to completion?