GY, I am sure the substance of the BEA release is accurate as stated.
The cynic in me suggests it was to satisfy AirBus as AirBus leaked ever more data. It was finely crafted to really show only that the aircraft did exactly what the pilots told it to do. I can't see anything else the data shows conclusively. And it seems to have shut up the leak, AirBus or not AirBus.
I am sure the final report will show more than what the release shows. Do the aerodynamics of the aircraft support the altitude gain with a specific wind direction or still air? Does that shed light on anything in the cockpit? Was the data presented to the pilots sufficient for them to diagnose the situation in the face of a possible fixation on UAS procedures? Are there software improvements indicated? Are there flight display improvements indicated? Did Air France order a suitable set of options for the flight display? Are there hardware improvements indicated? Are there training improvements indicated?
These and more all must be answered in any final report. Some of it may end up showing AirBus in a bad light based on the total data set and serious aerodynamic modeling. And even if it shows AirBus in a bad light I suspect it will not contradict what was released. It will simply explain what was released.
The people here, mostly far more expert than I am, are discovering that the data shown reveals very little that can lead to a solid conclusion because we lack some of the data and the fine grain data from the recorder and the aircraft test and modeling efforts that the BEA no doubt has today. The important thing is that even as sloppy as this data may be - it shut up the leaks.
(And it gave us something to discuss here. I sure hope the final report addresses some of the issues we've found here well enough to satisfy us. We have found some potential issues in hardware, software, training, and design it seems. And one or more of these issues may still be unsolvable within the current state of the art.)