Back to Cirrus' original post.
There seems to me to be a definite mismatch between...
TP: "1kn/s decel, as close to 1g as possible, identify the stall and stall warning characteristics and document them"
Instructor: "minimise height loss, whatever decel rate goes with that, stall warning is audible or very clear buffet - nothing else counts, stall is marked by a pitch break, if you don't get one, pull back harder on the stick".
In the military flight testing world, there's a concept called "role relation" - where test methods and evaluation are modified to match the way the aeroplane will be operated in service. UK CAA has always insisted that it's light aircraft Test Pilots are also FIs of some description, giving them the ability to role-relate, in the same way that a military TP who was recently a fighter pilot can reasonably assess a new fighter aircraft.
However, in my experience, a large proportion of TPs assessing light aeroplanes likely to be used for civil instruction are not FIs. This is arguably a deficiency, and perhaps is at the root of Cirrus' observations? Whilst the 1kn/s certification stall is certainly still needed for various reasons - such as the determination of Va, you could make a strong case that stalls similar to those in the PPL and CPL skills tests should also be flown as an exercise in role-relation.
Of course, most (all?) civil licenced TPs have at-least taken these tests, if not taught for them, which should give that understanding. But perhaps the military TP who Cirrus was flying with had not?
Ref: Barit's post - perhaps this is a role-relation issue also? In most aeroplanes, a snap role would not be a normal manoeuvre, and probably not even a reasonably expected bit of mishandling. In an aerobatic aircraft however, it would be, and I'd certainly hope to see it assessed. That test plan determination surely comes down to the knowledge of the test team, and in particular the test pilot(s) to get right?
G