But I do admit that the MOS could be better worded. “Does not balloon or bounce” is surely what is intended?
There's no problem with a minor balloon or bounce if it's corrected. The wording does insinuate that it should be checked. It should be written as "any ballooning controlled and corrected as required", that would then imply that only if a balloon occurred then the candidate should deal with it in an appropriate manner. In a few schools I've worked at students are not taught to "control" a balloon or bounce, just told to go-round from the situation. Again the MOS being written by someone with experience in traditional trainers, Cessna and Pipers, where this would be normal. Hence why I don't like over prescriptive rules, as eventually they delve into 'type specific' issues that make it hard to comply with. I remember some instructors with significant hours that did not understand 'landing attitude' because they were used to basically stalling their Piper or Cessna onto the ground. This then gets them into trouble with aircraft that tail strike at high nose attitude, which is more common in light aircraft these days.
I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.