Katslf:
I'd suggest pulling the CBs did not cause the problem but was a reaction to it. I bet it was after the zoom climb.
I would very much doubt it. If an aircraft is pitching 25º up at 30,000ft, and probably pulling some 'g', your first thought is not: "oh, I will get out of my seat and pull some CBs over there....." And there was not really enough time for such actions, once the loss of control started.
And the report as leaked thus far appears to indicate the the upset was the result of pulling CBs and the f/o losing control, and not
vice versa.
A more reasonable scenario is they were dealing with another issue entirely that was giving some warnings and decided - for whatever reason - to pull the CBs. And this action resulted in a loss of control. The question is, why? Especially if this reset was a 'ground-only' function.
Edit:
If the FAC had been flagged nine times previously, this may give us a possible rationale for resetting it. However, a ground reset is normally a ground reset for a jolly good reason. But in this case, the justification for repeatedly returning the same box to service after it had been snagged nine times, needs looking into as much as any subsequent actions during the flight. The pressure by management on engineers NOT to replace items needs looking at in much greater detail. The casual notation: "tested found serviceable" is all-too common in all airlines, and is becoming engineer-speak for "they are complaining about nothing, again". (hint: a bench-test is not the same as a flight test).