"Effective aircraft" does not mean that you have, from left to right, a box for "human", an other independant "man-machine interface" box, and a third independant box "machine/system".
The three are mixed inside the effective aircraft. It is the interest of this concept to say that. The study of instabilities as Aviation SAfety and Pilot Control (so early as 1997) shows how it is wrong to imagine the system is well or faulty and the man is faulty or well, and shows it is the best way to continue with oscillations and divergences, and to never improve.
As any dynamic system, the AF447 effective aircraft has mandatory two qualities :
1. it must be
observable 
2. it must be
controllable
1. To be
observable the matrix describing the effective aircraft must include
all the men-parameters, and
all the system-parameters, it is a very big matrix, much bigger than this one from an non fbw aircraft. The correspondant
sensors have to be connected.
To be
controllable, the
determinant of this matrix is
not allowed to be zero. Correspondant
actuators must be connected.
The
man-machine interface is not an isolated box, but concerns many functions of the big matrix who must not be faulty, and allows the effective aircraft to be always observable and controllable.
The human factor is very much more complicated that a short description of psychologically confused crew in one isolated box It has his place in any of these many functions of the effective aircraft matrix.
The designers of the aircraft have to analyse very closely if all these many functions do what is expected from them.
For instance, if it is only the system who "observes" the AoA ("incidence" in french) (AoA present in the traces) , but the pilot has to take decision, to control the aircraft, we doubt about his real ability to control the effective aircraft without these information, and we can guess something is wrong in this architecture. Then the pilot is no more able to achieve his pilot task.
It has also to be said that the law does the airline who sells the ticket, responsible, is it directly or through his agent failure.