bearfoil
"Not "raising the nose" in recovery from approach to Stall, but "Maintaining Altitude", two very different things."
Point taken.
I read somewhere that the initial two stall warnings were a valid response to the invalid 60kt pitot reading. Maybe the stall warning comes first in the relevant part of the computer program , before the validation of the data upon which the stall warning is based.?
Anyway, could the assumption by the PF that the initial short stall warnings were valid explain the climb?