"deep" stall versus "deep stall" again
Salute!
I tend to agree with the term "deep" stall versus the other.
Aparently, in the commercial jet community, the term "deep stall" gained popularity with the T-tail design. However, even a "conventional" horizontal stabilizer design can wind up in a very stable stalled condition, as we proved back in 1978 and 79 in that little jet I flew then.
It all depends upon the jet's pitch moment at certain angles of attack. And remember that your pitch moment is affected to a great degree by the THS or HS or whatever you want to call it.
So it is entirely possible that Airbus modeling/wind tunnel runs will find that with a sufficiently rear center of gravity and the THS at the maximum deflection then there is insufficient nose down authority with the elevators.
I DON'T THINK THIS WAS THE CASE WITH AF447
We see glimpses of nose down attitude changes and reduced AoA, then we see continued nose up pitch attitude and continued nose up commands by the pilot.
No doubt in this Viper "has-been" 's mind that the fully deflected THS made the situation tough, but I can't convince myself that recovery was not possible, especially if the stick had been held forward long enough for the "laws" to move the THS to follow the pilot's command.
Lastly, at sufficiently high AoA, the ailerons will cause the nose to move opposite what one would expect and not have a big effect upon actual roll attitude. Ask 'bird, RF4 and Smilin' Ed.