A few more points for clarification
JimL
My understanding is that the Maufacturer has to meet CS27/29 regulations, which do not reflect any 'performance classes' therefore I am slightly confused as to why you think there is a problem here so please bear with me.
CAT-A
WAT charts are included and are defined as limitations for those kind of operations in the CAT-A supplement. The techniques describe a 2 part flight path ending at 1000 ft AGL with ROC of at least 150 fpm, hence compliant iaw 29.67 (2).
HV
As stated before the RFM of the 189 does not include traditional HV charts, they are replaced by a chart which gves the WAT data associated with 2 fixed procedures; a vertical landing and a flyway one.
The WAT chart gives the maximum mass for a safe vertical landing at any height up to 200 ft (very simple to understand)
The second set of WAT info calculates the height loss associated with the flyaway technique for given AUM/ambient conditions. This data is also summarised in table form (simpler to understand).
surely this does meet the requirement of 29.1517 (I think you made a typo in your post, 29.1519 refers to weight and CG limits), the aircraft is safe to vertical reject iaw the WAT chart if below 200 ft or safe to flyaway if hover height is greater than (height loss + clearance required).
Therefore I am unsure what the problem is, the data presented is compliant with the CS requirements, although not in the 'traditional' manner, and EASA agree
happy to be corrected on any of the above.
reagrding your earlier posting (17/8 15:05) I am having trouble finding the value of Takeoff mass you use (8050kg), the vertical WAT (fig 4A-2) gives 7904 kg, please clarify where that num,ber comes from
regards
DM