You seem to have conveniently left out a few details in presenting your case - important details. Such as the (independently confirmed) act of deliberately selecting 100ft on the MCP and commencing a descent.
What we have are a series of confirmed (to beyond reasonable doubt) events, for which there is only one plausible explanation - Which is why the conclusions already reached hold up, and have been made public. I appreciate this is slightly different to concrete proof, but air accident investigations quite frequently fall short of the 'concrete proof' standard and settle in the realms of 'no other plausible explanation' or 'most likely explanation'.
There persists a lot of unreasonable (IMHO) doubts being raised here.
Hypoxia has been ruled out (beyond reasonable doubt).
Incapacitation has been ruled out (beyond reasonable doubt).
Who was were and who took which actions have been established (beyond reasonable doubt).
...all from combinations of CVR and Mode-S ES data.
I don't believe the FDR will add much, if anything, to these conclusions.
I haven't challenged the evidence that Mode S data recorded 100 ft from the MCP. But when QRH says ALT KNOB - TURN/PULL it doesn't say what altitude to select, does it? If I was stressed and kept winding it all the way, it would eventually read 100, even if the 100/1000 ring wasn't moved.
Before writing my post I carefully scoured NYT and other sources to find out what hard evidence is out there. Unless I missed something, no other assertions are possible exept what the three witnesses have said.
Before you can add anything, you've got to say what your source is, just like I have done. So...
How, precisely, has hypoxia been ruled out?
How, precisely, has incapacitation been ruled out?
Precisely which actions have been established?
Who took them?
FDR may or may not add anything. We must wait and see.