HC,
before you find someone jumping down your throat, you will need to correct your section 2 arguments: The S-92 became 'power aware' with the introduction of AMS 3.2.
AEO (DEO as they say) it respects the MCP limits. On the other hand, you can't fly it at MCP (86% Tq) as it would shake itself to death! Most operators either fly at 70-75% Tq, or a fuel flow or, in our case, an IAS. Many still fly the cruise in 3 axis coupling, for that reason (not us of course!)
In the event of an engine failure, it will re-datum the IAS to Vy and then respect the OEI MCP limits. This is a somewhat crude method, and the significant collective lowering to decelerate from cruise power results in a guaranteed 200 ft height loss (which slowly corrects.) One consideration is that the OEI Vne is 120 kts IAS so, it couldn't simply keep the ALT as that would posssibly result in Vne being exceeded, if the failure occured in the cruise. You couldn't use 120 kts as the datum, because in the event of a failure at a lower speed, the a/c would then accelerate, probably undesirably. So, Vy it is!
What it won't do, which ECF products do, is automatically couple the collective in the event of an engine failure, when previously 3 axis coupled. So, those operators who fly '2-cue' in the cruise will have to lower the collective promptly, whereas a 225 pilot flying 3 axis coupled would simply look up from his breakfast and say "oh, an engine failed, let's just monitor Monsieur Sagem dealing with it".
It is difficult to adequately explain in words, though HC has atempted well, how much more superior the 225 auto flight systems are by comparison to the 92: not just the physical coupling but also the MMI (Man Machine Interface) aspects. They are not perfect, but by golly they're good!