Not really - that is just basic undergaduate flight mechanics - it only covers non-compressible flow and does not even touch on FBW stability augmentation.
The link provided by ORAC is more interesting, but still a bit limited - e.g.:
"Mid-wing vertical arrangement is more laterally stable than low-wing arrangement, especially when combined with Rafale’s wide body. As too much lateral stability can cause severe Dutch roll and excessive roll response to lateral gusts, Rafale’s wings are designed with anhedral to reduce stability."
Any fule no that, so I am surprised they put that in the article.
If I am to stick my neck out, I would say that the Rafale designers have prioritised low-speed handling characteristics to allow it to land on carriers with reasonable safety margins. This has meant optimising the airframe for non-compressible flow - hence fairly conventional lateral stability augmentation by increasing anhedral. They have probably done some clever stability augmentation to take care of the compromises in other parts of the flight envelope, particularly supersonic flight.
On the other hand, Typhoon designers have possibly aimed to optimise performance in compressible flow. Anhedral is not desirable in supersonic flight as it worsens shock wave separation from the extrados of the wing exacerbating mach tuck, and drag. So they have possibly gone for a flat wing to give good stability and range in supersonic flight and used stability augmentation to improve handling in subsonic flight.
Just guesswork - you would really have to interview the software engineers to get a proper answer.