Interesting.
I see you have incorporated some of the suggestions from the forum.
The only point of contention is that you seem to equate bank angle with a given rate of turn. While this in broadly true, it only applies in a balanced turn with ailerons and rudder acting together.
Given that there was no effective aileron control, the turn became progressively more unbalanced as the roll increased. So the aircraft was effectively skidding sideways through the air (in a horizontal axis).
That kind of makes a nonsense of any attempt to calculate a turn rate based on the angle of bank of the aircraft. That is to say, an aircraft in banked or even knife edge flight, may have no turning moment whatsoever. Or alternatively there may be a considerable initial rate of turn that then progressively reduces as bank angle increases, due to the ailerons and rudder becoming increasingly out of balance.
That would account for the impact site being where it was, despite calculations suggesting that this would not have been possible with progressively increasing bank angle and rate or turn. The rate of turn didn't increase linearly with increasing bank angle. In fact it may well have reduced somewhat.