Confiture,
Just to defeat the notion of 'evasion':
As elevator deflection is proportional to stick deflection, any erratic movements of that stick tend naturally to disappear especially when speed is still high or a price has to be paid on the human body.
Considering the inertia of the airplane, I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps you should try it in your next simulator opportunity.
THS at 13 deg instead of 3 deg is an elephant in the room.
Direct law would not have allowed its presence.
I suppose you mean that there is no autotrim and that you assume that the PF would not have trimmed manually. At 02:11:35 he seemed pretty desperate to keep the nose up, and in direct law "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" is displayed on the PFD.
Any release of the stick, not to talk about push command, would have provoked an immediate ND change in the attitude.
Direct law would not have allowed to go that easily to the stall and would have favorized an exit from that stall.
In the two instances that the PF released the stick, the elevator responded and the airplane promptly pitched ND.
There is no doubt the captain has heard the stall warning, but more than anything there is no doubt the captain has heard the stall warning STOPPING which played enormously in his inadequate evaluation of the situation.
Direct law would have prevented that warning to erroneously quit.
While it is probable that the stall warning would have been uninterrupted in direct law, that is not certain.
Last point but not the least, the sidestick concept did hide to the PNF initially, and then to the captain + PNF what the PF inputs were and how those were inappropriate at times.
I have earlier expressed my opinion on the visibility of the sidestick. Seeing the control pulled to the back stop might have added another clue that might have pointed the PNF and particularly the captain towards a correct diagnosis of the situation.
All those points had to be thouroughly developed by the BEA, and not only superficially for some and completely ignored for others.
Perhaps you would care to justify that opinion considering that BEA's investigations "are conducted with the sole objective of improving aviation safety and are not intended to apportion blame or liability."