That's all well & good and looks nice on paper, but placing the CG behind the mainplane center of lift implies three things:
1. The horizontal tail lift is positive, and
2. The aircraft is seriously lacking natural stability.
3. It also means that Cg movement (fuel burnoff) does not substantially affect cruise drag. (Cg movement would only shift the load share between main & tail planes)
Thus I have a problem accepting this configuration - unless artificial stability / FBW are controlling things.
In real airliners we know that Cg movement affects stability AND ALSO cruise drag - and the reason is that the stab has negative lift, to counter the nose-down moment of the Cg-Cp couple.
Further evidence is found in the Lusaka 707 freighter accident in the 70's in which half the horizontal tail failed on approach. Did the aircraft pitch nose-up? No, it immediately went nose-down due to the loss of half the nose-up moment of the tail.
If we can resolve these pieces of evidence with a lifting tail, then I might be convinced otherwise...