The report certainly makes for interesting reading. Looking at all the contributing factors you could also construct an argument that some design features of the Airbus family paved the way towards this incident. It has taken a while but this was something that was almost certain to happen at some point, fortunately the damage that was done was mostly material in this case. As Otto Throttle mentions, it may have happened before many times but gone unreported.
Yes crews need to understand and interact with the aircraft but on an Airbus the 'understanding' part can be difficult. I'm certainly not against the types, just saying that there are some additional layers of system logic that crews should be aware of and which Airbus may not fully explain in their manuals. With this historic low crew workload we're taking the sharp edges off the operation in a way, leaving crews in a state of mind from which the awakening can be problematic at times.
Just my two cents.