Originally Posted by
gums
...due to all the other things the crew believed that [the systems were] doing to "protect"...
To be fair gums, that's speculation on the part of the PF's assumptions. Also, we know that the PNF called Alternate Law and should thus have been aware that there were no hard protections any more.
I suspect that the PNF didn't spend any more time than necessary "heads-down" in the ECAM, because shortly after making those calls he's verbally correcting the PF on his flightpath. If he saw "ALTERNATE LAW (NO PROT)", then it's likely he would have seen the preceding "NAV ADR DISAGREE" too.
I can't be certain, but I have to say that I don't think it's a question of inadequate annunciation of the UAS problem. The evidence suggests to me that the result of the PF's immediate instinctive action on AP disconnect quickly became a greater threat to the safety of the flight than the UAS, and it was that which caused confusion and indecision in the PNF. From that point onwards it becomes purely a CRM issue.