CONF iture;
You're an A330 pilot, (captain?) and know and understand the requirement to use and adhere to SOPs and to employ standard CRM communications and problem-solving techniques. The unilateral actions by the PF, within a second of the start of the UAS event do not conform to standard responses to abnormalities, nor did the actions of the PM as the problem rapidly degraded.
HN39 states that a reversion to direct law would not have made a difference in this case. I agree. What should have been a straighforward response to an abnormal event instead took the aircraft rapidly out of stabilized cruise flight and beyond the boundaries of controlled flight. It is no surprise that what the airplane presented them with while well beyond test-pilot territory confused them because they acted outside of expected and trained responses. This kind of response is not specific to the A330, or a Boeing design or a Douglas etc and so making changes to a design only covers this one specific response; where will the next "abnormal" come from which again challenges a crew who may exhibit a similar response?
These are issues to consider and not dismiss in favour of a singular focus on a specific type of aircraft or flight control system.