Re: the -1g push that's a side show to the thread:
Wouldn't a push typically be needed when you roll inverted? (Even if the aircraft is a more symmetrical type, and not draggier and less aerodynamic upside down.)
My off-the-cuff aerodynamics isn't the greatest so I won't go into a ton of detail. But I can refer to a what a couple well regarded aerobatic pilots wrote.
Neil Williams in his book Aerobatics in the '70s:
"The more stable the machine in normal flight, the heavier it will be in inverted flight on the controls; for example, if the tail-plane is set at a high negative incidence on the fuselage, it will give strong longitudinal dihedral, and therefore a powerful restoring force in the event of a disturbance. This, coupled with a forward C.G. can make it very tiring to hold the push force required for inverted flight, and it may be impossible to trim it out. On aeroplanes of this sort, one has to use the trimmer to fly aerobatics, and this will not result in a good performance. Since most aerobatic machines have some positive longitudinal stability , there will always be a push force in inverted flight. By trimming nose heavy, we can compensate to some extent for this."
Eric Mueller in Flight Unlimited similarly writes about trimming for 0g. If one trims for 1g, then one will have to push for level -1g. If one trims for 0g there will be a little pull at 1g (at a given speed) and still some push for -1g. So a push is expected.
============
As for "Normalization of Deviance":
While I like the concept, I think it may be overused, as it is a handy and erudite sounding catch phrase. It seems pejorative about any change, as if there is only one possible correct way. Sometimes that is in a sense true, because if the boss or the manual says there is one way, then that is supposed to be the right way. Or everyone might indeed agree that one way is far more right than another.
If procedures aren't that clear cut though, then it is a kind of 'blame the underling' strategy. If the boss' way results in an accident, well, it's just an unfortunate accident and maybe things will have to change in the future. But if the underling's way results in the accident, then the underling pilot may have been guilty of normalization of deviance.
So one has to be careful about defining what is normal or acceptable. There may be no absolutes involved.
The "How I almost destroyed..." article does talk about Normalization of Deviance as both something that can happen to individuals (like him & his back seater doing the 0g gear up procedure) and something affecting an organization (e.g, Red Arrows procedures getting out of step with other parts of the RAF).
One has to be careful not to conflate the two. If it is something happening in an organization, where it has been accepted as a norm to do things in a way unlike in the dusty manual on the shelf -- and the boss hasn't stepped in -- then it may not be an individual pilot's fault. He isn't normalizing any deviance -- he's just following the de facto standards of the squadron. As far as he knows, his procedures are normal and not deviant.
Just my opinion as an amateur observer of aviation human factors.