Hi,
Diagnostic:
Your diagnosis are being helpful.
You made a question indeed difficult to answer: Why an UAS processor was not offered?
Possibilities:
1) They consider the task a pilot responsibility
2) They prefer to be conservative not risking
3) Management / communication (inside and outside) Airbus SAS issues
4) They never considered or was not considered important
5) Other factors (cost, ROI, etc.)
IMO (rare) conditions of this unique crash may led to consider AoA and even UAS "processing" as important. I hope so.
At least, both factors were (as it seems) undetected by a non adequately trained crew.
Submitted to complex "inputs" that required the creation of HF study in order to analyze the accident thoroughly.
The answer Why, as you put, i prefer to say it was a mix of the 5 items perhaps with #4 as the most influential.
(*) Airbus SAS (and others) are processing UAS just to the System.
The System is not fed with garbage. The pilots need to "process" any garbage through scan and brain.
Thiells 727 and AF447 shows the GIGO "feature" of humans sometimes fails wrongly in "processing garbage".