Mr. optimistic
So you think they knew they were stalled ?
I stated that before already. They recognized the first intermittent stall warning as a valid indication due to applying too much NU input (like pulling the A/C into the stall warning AOA) at begin of climb and reacted with ND input (reducing the climb rate to 700 fpm). There was too much NU SS input after the disengagement of AP+Athr due to inexpierience and lack of training, the reaction of the aircraft with the amount of pitch was a surprise. The correction with ND input was not big enough (PX comfort, not to want overreact again,...)
The second stall warning was honored with the stall recovery procedure by applying TOGA thrust, however pitch reduction was again either not applied correctly or not applied enough or other reasons (cant think of any though besides of thrust, which i myself cant qualify, although it is of concern in oficial airbus publications dealing with new stall recovery procedure) caused the pitch to increase to 16°.
What else than a reaction to the stall warning should have motivated the crew to apply TOGA thrust?