Of course - I was just being irritatingly pedantic (as usual) for the benefit of thread-watchers who were new to the discussion.
Generally speaking, I think it's important not to get too hung up on the technical aspects of control laws, as some people's eyes tend to glaze over at the mention of them - while the specifics are definitely of interest to a technical audience, I think the best way of explaining them is in terms of more traditional setups.
Specifically, in real terms, all the control laws and their underlying mechanisms actually do is provide maximum controllability in the event of systems or mechanical failures - the technology means that this re-configuration is automatic, but ultimately it's no more than the equivalent of what a flight engineer would do in the event of a e.g. a dicky hydraulic pump or a stuck control cable on an older type.
The common thread remains, however, that the presence of a malfunction requires a gentle touch with the aircraft until the consequences of the malfunction on the aircraft's handling are understood and compensated for by the crew.