GY, in trying to parse the points in the closed thread about stall procedures, I arrive at this yet again. (It seemed to discuss A320 procedures. Hope they are close enough for comparison).
IF you are trained to respond to stall warning with the idea that the stall warning means
"do something or you'll stall" *
THEN you may respond differently if the stall warning is actually telling you
"you are stalled, do something!"
The 5 deg nose up + max power seems like a pre-stall avoidance maneuver to me. (10 deg nose up at alt < FL 250)
EDIT: let me explain why I say this. It makes good sense to begin your action before you stall. If your AoA is close to stall, that's a good time to be warned. The system is designedto warn you for a very good reason: better to get ahead of the stall and fly the airplane out of that condition that to try to deal with being stalled.
While 5 deg nose up max power per that procedure (alt > FL250) would hopefully prevent (or clear, if 16 deg nose up caused it) the stall and not result in another one, a nagging thought crosses my mind.
If that attitude and power combination were sustained for too long, would you not eventually reach the altitude limit and then stall for a different reason?
(Not saying this happened with 447, based on the info to hand, but it's a risk if your stall recovery at high altitude results in a climb, with airspeed limits high and low slowly converging ... )
Granted, once recovered from stall (or even approach to stall) one then works to restore original airspeed, course, and altitude ... gently, I presume.