AOA vane has physical stops. It has to be 35-40 degrees, so greater than 40 degrees AOA can only be calculated from the IRU, which data has apparently not been released, and the BEA are quoting AOA only from the vanes. I'm betting real AOA at the end was 100-120 degrees.
Graybeard, to get the AoA value you suggest, would not the aircraft have to be moving backwards?
See the diagram here.
Angle of Attack Indicator
If you move (orange) line (marked number three) down, you increase the the angle. To get to the value you assert, the orange line, resultant relative wind, would have to be coming from behind the aircraft's nose, behind and below the leading edge of the wing. That would need for the plane to be dropping not just straight down, but straight down and roughly moving in the direction (with nose up 16 degrees) that the tail was pointing. If it were doing that (and I doubt it was) the ailerons would not provide lift. The flight path described (see takata's picture some pages back) by the data BEA provides, indicates a long, wide, right turn (almost a teardrop) from apex of climb to impact with the water. Nowhere does the BEA report indicate the rapid change of heading associated with a spin.
So if it didn't spin, but was stalled, and was in a rate of turn that described the track over the ground from that reconstructed picture, the aircraft was moving in the direction that the nose, not the tail, was pointing. More to the point, your estimate would require the aircraft (whose ground speed was reported as 107 knots) experience a massive microburst of airflow to hold that AoA (relative wind from behind) and 107 knots forward.
Your AoA estimate there does not fit what has been reported.
Can you sketch out why you come up with that estimate, or were you tossing that against the wall to see if it would stick?