BEags. Cor that lot would take a book and a lot more info than I possess to answer your specifics with any certainty.
Some minor comments. Whatever the shape of the lift curve there is the matter of wing area. Without that the whole thing has to work too hard. The Vulcan (ah!) is the only aeroplane I have ever flown where I never felt short of wing. The aerodynamics (nothing else) of the TSR2 always looked too much like those of the 104 to me and that was a specialist interceptor design where much (everything?) was sacrificed for speed.
I think interservice rivalry certainly played a part in the poor contractor performance that eventually resulted in many cancellations. (P1154 for one) Then too many designers finish up designing what they want to do rather than what would be most use for the chap in the crewroom. Too many designers get a good idea about a new whatever and press on with it without thinking the whole thing through. The bottom three in my list are classic examples of that. Perhaps its human nature at work – the navigator who sees four things on his map that fit the place under the nose beautifully and chooses to ignore the one feature that does not fit - type of behaviour.
Certainly in that period of history service staffs tended to hear of a new thing and automatically just add it to the aircraft they were considering like mum wanting an extra for her car just because she has heard about it. But then many of the OR staffs were not educated or trained to know better, so we must not lay too much at their door. More the system that gave them the responsibility without the training.
Sorry I’ve had a bad day!