German here. Proper translation: "During final assembly the engine control software had been installed incorrectly."
It doesn't mention parameters and lacks any specifics about how they managed to install the software "incorrectly". In a German military forum (augengeradeaus.net) there has been some speculation by current and former military personnel that either the incorrect revision of software had been installed, or that (indeed) some parameters were used that were incompatible with whatever software they had been using during the maiden flight. Or a mix of both.
However: Airbus is awfully silent about what did lead to the inability to retract the flaps after take-off, which the doomed crew had reported by radio.
A "software installation problem" during final assembly is awfully convenient for Airbus, too. With that they say: "The software is not the problem. The installation was. (i.e.: human error) All we need is better Q/A.". And also: "The engines themselves aren't the problem."
But fact of the matter is: Airbus has (since long) lost the ability to integrate turboprop engines into airframes. Or to design airframes around turboprops. For the A400M they had to start on a clean sheet for that. It would not be surprising if the engines of the A400M (and their integration into the system as a whole) contain some unaddressed issues that haven't yet been fully ironed out.
The German ministry of defence also doubted the statement of Airbus and said that if the software was glitching, the engines should have continued to operate on their last power setting instead of shutting down.
Bottom line: Airbus is in all out damage control mode and it can be speculated that the entire (sad) truth hasn't come out yet.