Mr Optimistic
If the stall warning was perceived as real, you would expect the nose down input to be sustained but with some puzzlement (to be solved later) as to what delayed the warning. If the warning was considered spurious then there is still no reason to pull back on receipt of the warning because it is, erm, spurious. I can't imagine a train of thought which would cause a pull back on receipt of the warning, purely because of the warning.
You are quite right, of course.
In the info released so far there is no mention of what the PF did after that stall warning caused by his nose down inputs. It's just surmise that he stopped nose down inputs at that point.
The released statement is obviously a highly selected set of the whole data. I would imagine selected in order to prepare us for a conclusion, which those in the know have already come to. After all, with the voice recorder available, and precise timings of inputs, it may be obvious that the resumed stall warning had a direct reponse from the PF - or not as the case may be. I guess with all the data you could come to a conclusion in the time it takes to listen the the voice recorder.