Kingy
Works of art exist in all branches of aviation, and I've no problem with acknowledging that yours probably is - as undoubtedly are others in any class. It however is probably a work of art compared to the average flying machine, regardless of category.
On the check-flight issue, BMAA check pilots aren't allowed to charge for the flight, and anybody with a good excuse can get permission to do their own annual air-test. Conversely BMAA doesn't (unlike PFA) require an inspector to sign-off engine maintenance, but since nobody in PFA bothers with this, that difference is moot too. Nor really does the licensing issue make much difference, since the upgrade from NPPL(microlight) to NPPL(SEP) is only slightly more onerous than the difference training from group A to microlight.
I think that both microlights and the PFA system should be forced down the throats out of far too many people spending too much money to hire dull aeroplanes. Arguing that either is better than the other is like comparing apples and pears - both are cheap, worthwhile and a huge improvement on CofA for private flying.
IO540
Without a doubt, and it used to be even worse dealing with a certain department head at the CAA who had to defend this position when we all knew that he owned a piper Cub on a Permit to Fly. (He's now left CAA, but the policy hasn't.)
The certification rules for an SR20 and a composite microlight are virtually identical. The airframe mustn't break below +9/-4.5g, the MTOW must be at-least empty + 190lb/seat + 1hrs fuel. Both will have a working flight envelope of about +4/-2, and a Vne must be at-least 13% above maximum level speed.
G