Bear is in Alaska, visiting his Polar cousins.
Machinbird, that is a strong point to make. Not new, but strong. Airbus has installed a Trimming system for its elevators (strictly, for the a/c Pitch). There is a reason, a good one. The elevators are a part of a balanced system of demand, and managed stress. As you say, why such an exaggerated system? Possibly, with un"limited" authority, the elevators are subject to large air loads. A movable Stabiliser spreads this stress away from the smaller controls, the elevators.
So why the need for such large excursions in control surface? Why indeed.
Certainly not for authority? At cruise, the deflections are necessarily small, and actually create a danger of damage if they are too large. For added control at Approach to Stall?
The RTLU? Ever more important than the Rudder are the elevators. Yet there is no protection at high Mach for these critical surfaces (els)? As has been mentioned many times since AA587, a Rudder can be lost and the flight saved. A vertical Stabiliser if lost is the end of times.
Is the THS indeed a separate approach for control surface protection at high Mach? Then why not fly TRIM? Lock the elevators (a la RTLU), and use the slab to control Pitch. With a dampened and restricted stick at Mach, there will be no Mayonnaise. Likewise ROLL. How can it be so that this dream machine can wobble right and left, inviting a spin, due to PILOT? Especially with such rapid moves?
Always look in the corners, and bring a torch. This investigation has no conclusions as yet. Save those of the Armchair jocks here, evidently.
And those based on nothing more than prejudice and Pride.
Machinbird, the trend is toward more tech, and less pilotage. Shouldn't AB be more attentive to the different "requirements" of the cockpit, and its protections? Is that the question? In the interests of safety and pragmatism, yes of course.
To get defensive (and derisive) not to mention dismissive of decent questions is not only amateurish, it is lazy, even sloppy.