At the crucial moment of a/p loss, the airframe was climbing, and the Nose was Pitched down. Added to that, the bank angle was about 8 degrees Right wing low (turbulence?). The a/c had it right, they were in a robust upwelling, an updraft, and the Nose was commanded down, though the a/c still climbed. We do not know for how long the a/p had been maneuvering in this fashion, though it can be said that the pilots themselves, in discussing temps and calling the back for a HU on turb tells us it was not new.
It is this possibility that has been actively ignored. I believe the PF made a correction in Pitch that was perhaps the opposite of what was needed. Climbing in the airmass, a NU creates more climb, in g and in VSI.
Much is made of their presence in a cell, though the possibility of a robust UD is dismissed?
The column may have been 120 knots. If so, this plays havoc with airspeeds, AoA vanes, and 'feel'. The airspeed in descent could have been twice that reported by the DFDR. "I think we have crazy speed..."
As with any epic disaster, those whose fingerprints are on the investigation call the shots. Though BEA have not done so, the focus is on the 95% of what is utterly irrelevant to the disaster.
What caused the climb to Stall is virtually ignored, and when addressed, data is ignored, and the audience is expected to sign on.....
I think PF did fly attitude, more's the pity. And Power was not a player, not at first.