driftwood-
So just where do you come up with the theory that any design employing canards does so because of a major underlying design flaw?
As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, several VERY GOOD aircraft have been designed around the canard concept. XB-70 was a very successful design which met all its performance goals, only to be killed because of advancments in SAM and ICBM technologies. The Swedes built Viggen, and more recently Grippen, which were/are successful types. Rafale employs canards, as well the Eurofighter.
Civilian aircraft using canards include the Beech Starship, which although was not particularly successful in the marketplace (mostly because of FAA blundering and the consequent "weighing up" of the airframe causing it to fall short of performance goals) is nevertheless a fine aircraft. Of course the experimental types such as the Burt Rutan VariEZ and LongEZ, and other various offshoots are well known. Rutan's globe girdling Voyager was a canard design.
The Piaggio Avanti goes one step further with a "three lifting surface" design. Improved manufacturer support should jump start the market success of this type, which boasts a cabin equal in size to the Hawker 800 and cruises at FL410 doing 400kts....with propellors....on a fuel burn of just over 600pph. Why would anyone buy a Citation?
The canard principle is well proven, and as with any other engineering exercise, if it is well thought out, it will work just fine. My guess is that the Cruiser will take advantage of materials/manfuacturing advancments pioneered by the B-2. With the compound curvatures shown in the illustrations of the Cruiser, it's my guess that the structure will primarily be composite with minimal use of aluminum and other metals. Properly executed, this should result in a major weight advantage.
Bottom line. The USA has the technological edge. If Boeing builds the Cruiser, and I hope they do, Airbus will be caught flat-footed for at least a decade.