The report goes on to say that one of the immediate causes was that the aircraft was signed off as serviceable - which is where the Captain's signature comes in. The aircraft is not allowed to fly unless the commander has signed to say that it is - regardless of engineering activity.
Maybe try reading the report.
This occurred some 30+ times prior this accident. Since that accident, and despite more sticking plaster solutions by Airbus, Operators and Regulators, it has occurred another 3x.
Flight Safety does not get far by just finger pointing individuals as your post suggests. The AAIB have produced a wide ranging report, and even where the engineers directly contradicted AMM requirements, they noted this practice was carried out by other engineers and operators, and for good reason.
Maybe such a comprehensive report might actually get Airbus to do something now? As noted, until this one all other occurrences have had little Safety implication.
As I read the report, I felt that if a Sim instructor had given me that series of warnings and indications, I might well have got up halfway through and walked out saying it was ridiculously busy and unrealistic
PS When I sign the Tech Log, I am not stating the aircraft is fit to fly
AFAIK? I am accepting the aircraft as "offered for service".