Alf - I will preface this by saying I know you have had 'a long and varied career', which I readily accept and respect but I fear you have now been 'seduced' by what is known here as psychobabble.
""Any pilot with any NORMAL, EXPECTED "cognitive recognition" would …”, is an assumption," I suspect 99% of pilots, certainly A4 and I, would say it is a fact.
"difficult to establish what demands were placed on the incident crew at any stage of the approach." as A4 said, the only 'demand' at runway change was a challenging vertical profile, not enough to cause mental panic, and when they realised they had been in V/S it would have been READILY apparent that more track miles were needed. No question. So I see no demands that could not be readily handled.
"It is similarly difficult to define a ‘normal’ pilot, let alone their cognition as a measure for everyone; thus what is the scale by which to judge others, and again what is on/off limit." in this case not - see reference to 99%
"In this incident the crew ultimately went around; why." do we need to ask? Does that need 'analysis' too?
"Whatever ‘view’ that ‘caused’ the pilots to change their intent – a process, was probably similar....." ???? Probably the 'view' out of the window showing no runway to land on? Let's not get TOO carried away with 'the mental processes'.
"We should ‘celebrate’ the success of the GA (in a very small way)" well, yes, in a very big way, actually, a small straw to clutch at and one that no doubt 150 odd pax and crew, not to mention family, friends and Air France, appreciate too.
As far as "Ut Sementem Feeceris" is concerned, the best thing to do is not to sow the seed in the first place, which is, I believe, what Captains, like you and I were, are paid to do in the trust that they are "pilots with any NORMAL, EXPECTED "cognitive recognition ." Cogita ante salis or Caveat emptor seem appropriate?