I was trying to ask why the ECAM couldn't suggest the UAS procedure in a pitot failure.
Obviously it
could suggest the UAS procedure.
In hindsight it does look like a better option (to a non-pilot).
I suspect that it
doesn't suggest the UAS procedure because nobody anticipated common mode pitot failures. Nor thought about their implications after they started to happen.
Personally I think that the warning could/should be given even earlier in the process, when the computer first recognised that a pitot failure may have occurred [*]. I think you might gain a few tens of seconds that way.
... during which time it might be a good idea if the pilots were encouraged to disengage the autopilot, until they can see that all is well. I doubt that autopilots should be relied on in situations where UAS may occur.
* I suspect that there is some intentional delay in the process. Not least to smooth over transient failures when the plane has just "flown through a puddle" and overloaded the pitots.