Thales have (had) issues. All a/c operations have 'issues'. Transport does not function in a vacuum. A/C are certifiably up to the challenge, but they do not fly in a laboratory, with scrupilously maintained parameters.
To be safe, maintenance must be relentless. Pitot probes gobble up whatever atmosphere they are in, they have no choice. Salt air, grit, moisture, pollution, it is the fact of life. Thales had drain corrosion problems (from memory, original thread, and subject to flame). So in a bad way, the probes developed a less than reliably redundant read? Maybe.
From takata and his point re: three way adr rejection due discrepant reads, a slight hesitancy may be allowed re: ICE.
IMO, ICE would present as other than an instantaneous three way discrepancy. It seems more reasonable to entertain airflow changes. imo.
I have read only LandIT's repost of takata's post. It is a feast, and his best yet, imho. Injecting TCAS ACARS for altitude suggests perhaps looking at W/S for airflow disturbances?
I am relieved and fully support any writing that gives an objective basis for speculation. Of course the crew were qualified; where in the world did the initial objectivity of this forum go?
LandIT. I spot an idea in your post. "He did not incorporate his feelings from his seat".
Should He? That way lies danger. He was in the panel, making the best sense of what he saw, I would guarantee it. It was in flying by the book that did them in....... Interpreting "G", especially over time, isn't that potentially a conflict with the a/c?
I think takata is spot on. PF was likely F/O, from the RHS. Not relief pilot?