nitpicker330;
1/ this is a preliminary report
2/ what in the report is wrong?
A preliminary report is supposed to provide some early sense of accident causation or at least outline the factors which may have contributed to the accident. It is supposed to provide as much information as is available, normally from the data recorders, for the various user-communities to understand what occurred to that it can be prevented from happening again.
This "report" provides none of this; it is insufficient to understand what actually occurred.
There is nothing "wrong" in the report - there is nothing of substance in the report with which to be wrong.
Forget about full thrust, it never happened….
Other than hearsay, from whom or where does this information come? At this stage of an investigation, that kind of information no longer belongs in the rumour or witness category, it belongs in a preliminary report as derived from the data recorder(s). But there is nothing in the report that discusses power, nothing even to say it was, or wasn't applied, nothing that discusses any kind of go-around decision, nothing that discusses whether the airplane actually stalled in or was just flown into the water; the report does not discuss either pilot taking any preventative action.
That is why I think that the preliminary report is both insufficient and inadequate.