In my opinion it's all extremely theoretical what you say, borderline gibberish.
The point I am trying to make (unsuccessfully it appears) is that our performance calculations are based on LDA, but the "landing roll available" (for braking etc.) can differ by around 82m from the LDAs published for different Runways.
"Beyond the glide slope" (from memory) is just an information to you where the glide slope antenna is placed. Nothing more and nothing less. Someone with a Jeppesen may provide an exact definition. Nothing to do with LDA or LRA.
I agree there is a variation of a few meters, where the glideslope antenna is placed. It probably has to do with obstruction areas, aircraft categories and type expected to use the approach etc. Anyway, 344 meter equals a height above threshold of 59 feet (assuming 3 degs glide). Tell me how much do you need to go below the glide slope (dots) to be 9 feet lower 344 meters from the antenna? But more important:
Who even flies the glide at that height? You should be looking at the big white squares on the runway (aim point markings).
I agree that if making an auto land, the aircraft may be 9 feet too high in CDG (3600 meter runway). In my EFB there is a selection for auto land which will cause an additive to the LDR, probably to cover such minor discrepancies and system performance.
Further, if your performance calculations to another airport are that tight, that 82 meters means the difference of going of the runway or not, maybe you should consider a diversion (lousy visibility and 82 meter margin at max braking is not a cocktail I would recommend, even if factored).
Anyway it has nothing to do with the point or what the poster was asking. If there is an upslope in the touchdown zone it normal to pass the threshold higher than 50 feet. I.e. if threshold is at 230 feet and touchdown at 240 feet, passing over the threshold at 60 feet is normal, and does not affect your landing calculations (because you are touching down on the runway where you are supposed to).