Trouble is, any advertising/
PR guy will tell you that first impressions last a long time - and, in many peoples' minds, for ever......
Some quite respectable newspapers, for example, appear to have got the impression that the pilot caused the initial 'steep climb.' Even the BEA thing doesn't actually say that - indeed, in very 'spare' wording, it rather confirms the opposite, that the pilot countered the climb with 'nosedown control inputs' and restored the aeroplane to a situation of reasonable airspeed and a reasonable AoA:-
"The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees."
So we're really no further forward as to what caused the stall in the first place?
But BAE's repeated mentions of 'noseup inputs' later on appear to have put over an impression that the pilot caused the whole thing?
My own position is that the BAE would have been 'within its rights' not to publish the CVR this early in the investigation. Alternatively it could have published the whole of it. But just publishing a few isolated quotes is, in my view, plain wrong.
And its also clear that, from the rest of the text, with its descriptions of control movements, power settings etc., they've already analysed quite a lot of the FDR information too. Again, I'd have preferred 'all or nothing.'