...flight trials carried out using a Harrier, not F-35. So no F-35 handling characteristics, not the full F-35 system, not the F135 engine, not the 2015 software, not the F-35 brakes....
A Harrier trying to simulate an F-35? For proving a concept, fine. But that is still a simulation on a completely different airframe.
well, the intent was to provide F-35B handling characteristics, using the VAAC
digital active control system. As in inceptor displacement (and force, since XW175 at the time had an active sidestick that could and did represent traditional spring/damper systems as well as 21st century servo-controlled inceptors) to aircraft response. So when you say "no F-35 handling characteristics" I don't think you're being fair, as a lot of effort went into matching what the F-35B was predicted to do (and, as I understand it, now does). You're quite correct that the Harrier undercarriage doesn't match the F-35B's, but someone probably thought that looking at the flying to the deck bit was worth looking at so the stopping bit, with Harrier's weedy brakes, wasn't really part of the trial, I mean demonstration. Apart obviously from practical considerations of doing the trial, I mean demonstration, safely.
At the time, in June 2007, with no F-35Bs and QE class ships available, what more could be done?
The interest that raised the question, remember, was weather the F-35 had been tested on a QE sized deck.
Well, maybe you've forgotten that the F-35C has been to a bigger deck, or was that not what you meant
. The F-35B has been to a smaller one. As I tried to explain, an aircraft (a real life and death aircraft) with F-35B handling (as best as could be done, but you'll have to look at the response-matching data and judge for yourself) has been to a deck about the right size (PA Charles de Gaulle, so actually a bit smaller and not helpfully lined-up with the ship's wake) at SRVL speeds on an SRVL flightpath (plus or minus the variations induced by several test pilots, not all from the same country).
At the time someone (I'm admitting nothing) did suggest the Admiral Kuznetsov. Maybe if the SRVL demo had been done to that deck you'd be happier?
Sorry, I should add it was proving for the Bedford Array, was it not?
Not in June 2007 on PA CdG it wasn't. For the pretty sound reason that the Bedford Array hadn't been invented then. You'd have to look at the November 2008 trial (trial, not demo) on HMS Illustrious for a full-scale physical implementation of that, although by then quite a bit of simulation of F-35B/QEC had been done as well.