Again I'm sorry but your comment is completely incorrect. Under no circumstances is it appropriate to shut down the #2 engine below 400 ft regardless of circumstances. UA 232 is in no way a red herring but an indication of what is possible under extreme circumstances.
The shut down of #2 engine directly contributed to the specific circumstances of the crash. Had the engine been left on in accordance with specific SOPs that clearly state that no engine (even if on fire) is to be shut down below 400 ft a different specific outcome would have emerged.
This does not mean a different final outcome but we'll never know, what we do know with 100% certainty is that the FE's flawed decision robbed the captain of any chance to successfully control the "landing".
This seems to go back to the numerous 447 threads that all go beyond a basic lack of airmanship. At the end of the day that plane crashed entirely due to a lack of basic piloting skills. Neither individual was even remotely qualified to be in the pointy end of a commercial airliner.