Whilst i can see the argument for pitch & power as overriding targets, as a non pilot, surely there is more to it than that? For example, during the previous hr or so of the flight (at FL350) there must have been an "average" values for pitch, power and GS, that have been clearly demonstrated to "fly" the airframe in a sensible trim.
So surely, in the case of upset, these values would have been a nice place to start trying to aim for, no matter what your AS instruments are saying to you?? Clearly, under no conditions would a groundspeed of 110kts be acceptable (unless you are flying into the MOTHER of all headwinds, which the rest of the flight would have demonstrated to be false??)
The big question, is what parameters and causal factors lead the 3 pilots to incorrectly determine the necessary actions to recover?
Like all things in this world, everything is a compromise, i'm sure we could build an "uncrashable" aircraft, but no one would be able to afford to buy or fly it!
The most important thing, is that if clear and accurate action/response recomendations are forthcoming, that these are precisely implemented.
Unfortunately, there are no absolute answers in risk management, it's a "make the best job you can with the resources availible" problem.