Hamrah - 'Food for thought:- The blocked pitot system resulted in the autothrust applying thrust to stop the " apparent" speed decay. Similarly, the autopilot applied nose up trim for the reducing speed'
The BEA report states at the top of pg 2 'From 2 h 10 min 05, the autopilot then auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said "I have the controls". The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input. The stall warning sounded twice in a row. The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275 kt
to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS).
Note 1: Only the speeds displayed on the left PFD and the ISIS are recorded on the FDR; the speed displayed on the right side is not recorded.
Note 2: Autopilot and auto-thrust remained disengaged for the rest of the flight.'
The report later on pg 2 goes on to say 'At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs.'
My reading of this is, therefore, that the autopilot and autothrust had already disengaged by the point that the aircraft started climbing and were not responsible for either the application of thrust or nose-up inputs; the crew were.
Does the above alter your hypothesis?