I think maybe most of us are being a bit 'unfair' to the pilots. The FDR/CVR confirms that, for just about all of the time, they didn't have speeds - and both the Flight Directors kept cutting out at intervals, so very probably they didn't have working artificial horizons either for long periods. Indeed, late on, the Captain told the PF to use the ISIS, the standby instruments - that's clear proof, to my mind, that they literally couldn't see 'which way was up' (or, very sadly, which way was DOWN) from the normal displays.
Another thing that bugs me a bit is that the 3rd. report confirms without qualification that the THS, as reported earlier, went to virtually 'full up' at the outset and stayed there for good. Despite the fact that there were nosedown inputs at intervals. It ALSO confirms that in Alternate Law autotrim remains in operation.
Been thinking a bit about trim. In the stuff I flew (mostly gliders) it was an 'aid' only - it didn't 'think.' Generally speaking, if you wanted a sustained climb or descent, you moved the stick and then adjusted the trim until the stick forces were 'neutral' - when you wanted to level out you did the same thing over again. Point was, the trim was the servant, not the master.
The autotrim in Airbuses (maybe Boeings as well, for all I know) appears nowadays to go ON adding trim (up or down) after an up or down command unless and until the pilot makes an 'equal and opposite' movement of the stick. I just don't think that's sensible or necessary.
Another factor is Airbus's practice of not providing sidestick feedback. As indicated above, I simply don't know how anyone could fly effectively (not 'seat of the pants' stuff anyway) without it; seems to me that Airbus pilots (Boeing still provide feedback, albeit artificial) are permanently 'flying IFR' at present.
Yet another thing is the sidestick idea in itself. It virtually guarantees that neither pilot (plus the captain in this case) can see what inputs the other guy is actually making; they have somehow to work it out, after the event, from what the instruments show (IFR again). Monitoring what the other guy is actually doing is no problem with the traditional yoke or 'stick between the knees.'
Very much hope that Airbus review their whole 'design philosophy' about sticks etc. (especially the 'feedback' issue) as a result of this accident (plus others, like the Perpignan one). I believe that the spring-loaded, 'no feedback' sidestick was originally introduced purely as a weight-saving measure. Might be a good idea to reconsider that decision, even if it does mean a few extra pounds of weight?