Frankly, there is an unsolvable mathematical mystery. Within a 60" pitch (1m50 or 5 feet)) you cannot fit a fully flat seat for a decent sized person. Hence the typical 7/10° slope so that the "feet" get under the "head" in front. There is no magic that can get the seat to 5° or 0° inclination unless is is really short; hence the creative approach by other airlines such as SQ, or herring style as CX and VS. Given the depth of a seat (say a minimum of 10 cm for the back structure) , you can basically get a 1m40 bed with a 0° inclination, or a 2m bed with an approxmately 10° inclination (in order for the feet to get under the head). Because an angled lie-flat bed is usually not fully flat, the inclination varies over the length of the seat. For example it could be 5° at the leg level and 10° at the back level. So airlines are taken liberty with reality and advertising the smallest angle (as does AF with the new NEV).
The pix is a bit misleading for 2 reasons. First there is no seat in front in the pix; I fail to see the use of a foot rest/stop since this "stop" role is usually served by the seat in front. It will only be useful for bulkhead seats; otherwise the "stop" will only reduce the useful length of the seat. Second the pix is taken at an astute angle with the ground; this is typical of all pix trying to advertise new seats angled lied-flat seats. All these tricks are plaid by all airlines, not only AF; but before getting enthusiastic about the new seats it would be useful to get a few reviews by actual users. For longhaul flights, the truly flat BA, VS, etc.. retain my vote.