A2
I don't get you! Not one question of why? It would appear it's indisputable that she didn't correct the nd attitude, but was that the result of a bounced landing which turned to ****. Why would she take over? You seem to accept that she took over for no reason and then somehow flew the nose into the rwy, maybe she did, but how do you jump to that conclusion. Did the NTSB state she took over between 200-400' or is it just prune-fact?
What evidence do I have? What do you have: at 34' 2 nu, 4 sec later 3 nd, it's alleged that the pic took over somewhere between 200-400', you don't know why and then you call these bits of data "facts" as if they prove a point, which they may or may not as you don't if anything else took place and have strung them together to jump to a conclusion. This is a rumour network, I get that, but you have taken it too far in wanting to hang her, and yes, you did. Did SWA sack the captain at Midway? So, what else is it you know that we don't?
Your MO is to make bits of data, what you call facts, into a narrative without effectively knowing the context of those bits of data.
As to the company's process, don't make me laugh. You don't think their interests come into play there.