Alexandre - thank you for your question, but I also agree with this paying too much lip service to engine failure, when you would be in the wrong position for other failures which have a higher category of risk, and a machine that's not as crashworthy as another - and as usual, SASLess makes a very good point. I have always regarded a twin as only being safer when one engine fails - it's not safer just because it's got two engines, which is a problem when it comes to legal liability and the choice between using a 206 or a 355, for example. However much the rules might have been valid way back when, things change and the Authorities don't catch up, largely because the people in charge often don't understand the basics anyway and are afraid to change things (the red flag here is that you say they want you to operate in Cat A - my understanding is that is a certification standard that concerns itself with how the helicopter is built, and PC1/PC2 is built on it).
I have never been a big fan of backwards takeoffs - it's hard on the engines, and I don't feel comfortable going backwards downwind in an avoid curve (yeah, I know everyone pretends if you do it dynamically you are not in it but if you lose an engine, you are. It's difficult because you have to keep inside a profile but outside the H/V curve
). I understand they allow you to use the only good landing site for miles around, but I wouldn't want to go backwards without a crewman in those situations anyway.