I completely disagree.
Adding full power is always sufficient if done at the point of bounce, provided the student has been instructed in and competently demonstrated flying the aircraft away. The aircraft has been certified to climb in the landing config. If the aircraft is so “deeply stalled” such that it won’t fly on application of full power as you suggest, the problem is:
1. They continued the approach with the stall warning on
2. after the initial bounce - the go around was delayed far too long, or
3. the student has been sent solo without the required go around skills.
The aircraft does not go from bounce/skip (ie too high energy state to land) to “deeply stalled” in a heart beat.
Bounces in transport category aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish, using Boeing FCOM procedure to justify a certain instructional technique in a C152 is long bow to draw. A Boeing manual will call for continued takeoff after an engine failure ar rotate. Do you teach this in a Seminole during an initial multi?
Unless it were explicitly against the guidance provided by the AFM for the type, I completely agree with the BASIS comment. In my many years of experience of training, including GA, international airline cadets and airline check and training, going around is the safest option for an ab initio student.
Providing full power, full carb heat and full back stick as per your C152 example - does not a go around make. A normal go around from ground level should be heavily ingrained and practiced before first solo.
IMHO, the lack of correct go around training was the cause of this incident.