GAB: 
Even if they had published it I wouldn't dare to use them, we are in complete agreement. There is nothing in PANS-OPS either because as far as obstacle clearance is an issue there is no need to apply corrections.
Here's another point of view, help me decide if it is valid. These days it is becoming legal EU-OPS requirement to fly CDFA, so no dive and drive. Assuming the altitude diference is 300 ft at FAF, if you had selected -3 deg FPA as charted you would reach THR at 350 ft AFE, not a very good position for straight-in. If you used the DME/DIST table provided (not always the case), at 4 DME past station you have ALT 610 indicated, so maybe about 710 geometric.
That equals to 3,8 deg profile to reach 50' at THR. Airbus own FDM classifies 3,8 profile as medium severity event (amber). Airbus own FDM will trigger level 3 red risk 'Continiously high on final'. Limit for hard severity, red, event PTH HIHG is 3,95 deg.
a) you continue with 3,8 and master the flare, good chap. Not a trained or frequently practiced manoeuvre.
b) you regain PAPI 3 deg once visible at MDA. To do so, a duck under is required that will in fact destabilise the profile for a few moments and trigger level three red warnings EXCESS V/S and PTH HIGH. But the primary goal of CDFA was to have stable trajectory, wasn't it.
Throw in short runway on a cliff edge, downdrafts, wet runway (think Iraklion, Keffalonia), profile that is geometrical 3,5 deg initially, and some slices of Reason's cheese start coming together.
To further develop a good understanding of CDFA under effects of significant positive ISA dev, I think it would be nice to know how pronounced is the effect on altimetry. That's what I was after. I do not think that 100 years into powered flight we'd just discovered a killer problem, but perhaps it would be nice to know, how much margin you normally expect is taken away.
Yours,
FD (the un-real)