Agreed - but my opinion is that both systems tend sometimes to be a little too singleminded in their application. It is very frustrating in civil airworthiness to prove to everybody's satisfaction that an aircraft is entirely fit for purpose, but expend considerable time and money because it doesn't quite meet the pre-agreed requirements. I had a real-world case about 2 years ago where three test pilots all agreed that a characteristic was satisfactory, yet it failed to meet a safety factor on operating speeds; whilst the approval basis was renegotiated it delayed approval of an aeroplane by 2 months - which is a very long time for a company needing to sell aeroplanes to stay solvent.
Equally, in my previous life I sometimes felt that a full and thorough assessment was carried out of - say - dynamic lat-dir, and then it was decided whether or not it was acceptable for the role. Starting with a specification and targetting compliance with that, notwithstanding that the handling envelope must still be fully explored and the bottom line should remain test-team opinion, might sometimes lead to a more efficient and targetted test programme. Performance testing more so of-course.
Nonetheless, the two systems are what they are, and I think that it's important to understand the quite profound differences in philosophy if moving between civil and military flight-test, in either direction.
G