I'm pretty certain that I was agreeing with JF about what good practice is (although given his massively greater experience and credibility than mine, I'm not sure that he needs it!), but I was suggesting that not everybody out there - particularly in the light aircraft industry - follows this sort of best practice in ensuring that they include role related test points in a programme.
Any good test programme (regardless of the aircraft type or class) should almost certainly include both "pure" flight testers, and user-operators - often TPs may have that user experience (military flight test organisations usually make very sure of this), but if not it does need to be brought into the test team. But, I think that this is something that's been accepted for a very long time - plenty of test pilot autobiographies have discussed this, for example with Jeffrey Quill's occasional forays to the front line to ensure he knew what current fighter pilots were actually doing with their Spitfires.
I can recall as a student being worried by a few manoeuvres: particularly stalls and spins - perhaps I wasn't well enough briefed, but I don't think so. I agree that students do need to see the worst that the aeroplane may (within reason) do to them, but don't see why that needs to be the starting point of their experiences. A benign idle 1kn/s wings level stall to a mush-descent is surely a reasonable introduction to stalling for a student, even if they'll go rather beyond that before the instructor has finished with them.
G