Flanker,
(a) I would need the concurrence of other people to identify the exercise.
A most venerated rear mounted narrow bodied twin Type. I still kick myself for not bidding onto it for the experience.
And the Type doesn't matter, anyway - the problem exists whenever the AFM permits the scheduling of V1 down around Vmcg. Of course some aircraft have Vmcg so low that this never happens - in which case the problem goes away.
Mind you, I still can recall my eyes opening wide whilst watching through the viewfinder at the time .... I became an instant convert to that School which advocates rational matching of aircraft to minimum runway width which was what the exercise at the time was all about.
(b) ... how was it certified? This really is not the point - the certification performance standards are not about guarantees - rather they provide some reference data and guidance for the information of operators and crews. It is up to the operator/pilot to pitch his tent somewhere between the regulated minimum requirements and whatever is determined to be an appropriate risk management position, level playing field profit considerations notwithstanding.
The Vmcg certification requirement provides a very reasonable control boundary adequate for most operational circumstances. However, within restricted areas in the normal operating envelope, perhaps there is a flight standards and training problem/consideration to be mulled over.
(c) Most ferry or very lightweight ... The problem only must be worn (if you can't defer the operation) in the case of short runways where you are pretty well stuck with a low V1. In the event that there is lots of runway, then the problem can be avoided just by using some of the spare V1 range available up to the RTOW limits for the particular runway.
Perhaps I have needlessly caused anxiety.
This is a very minor problem in the overall scheme of things. I just think that it needs an occasional airing so that pilots have it tucked away in the back of the mind.