May I suggest that the problem we are talking about is known as risk shifting. That is when the safety features built in to a machine encourage more risky behaviours.
This has allegedly been seen with the introduction of ABS in cars, encouraging people to drive closer than is safe.
In aviation, i’ve seen this first hand with a grade 3 instructor doing my Evector Sportstar endorsement. “It’s a kitten, it just mushes down, watch this”. He said. We mushed from 3000 ft to 500ft. Yes, there’s was aileron authority. It was a kitten, right up until it bites - which it did for another “student” (80 years old) who was experienced on WWII machines, who knew how to provoke it.
I treat claims about safe characteristics with with a large grain of salt because you don’t get something for nothing.
My contention is that the DA40 is most probably spin resistant and very safe, with huge margins for error and mishandling — but that comes with the existence of a point of no return.
To put that another way, perhaps we have traded spin resistance for easy spin recovery.