I respectfully disagree. The accident chain started with the deliberate decision to continue the approach below minimums. By removing all of the altitude margin they made a crash inevitable when the engine asymmetry caused the fatal roll.
The airplane may have still crashed if the missed approach had been commenced at the Cat 1 limit but the extra altitude may also have allowed a successful recovery. Where they started the go around there was no possible recovery.
You are correct in the fact that there are many lessons to be learned from this terrible tragedy but for professional pilots the primary take away should IMO be Do not descend below minimums EVER. We pilots can't control many of the mechanical and operational issues that contributed to this accident but not busting minimums is totally and completely under our control.
So basically what you are saying they bust the minima 3 times and its pilot error?
And that's the precise reason you're view of the accident would actually contribute to it happening again - because in essence its a dismissal of every contributory part of the accident.
Look back through aviation - for every accident that the pilots are just blamed there is a repeat, one only has to look at Air France since AF447 in 2009 we've had 3 near stalls and about 5 major incidents which are directly attributable to training and understanding of in-flight upsets.
The reason your single view point will not stand is because;
Had the PF had full control the aircraft wouldn't have encountered the thrust issue or rolls and would have climbed away again - even when they bust the minima.