We are probably arguing over a term.
Yes ... and, no.
The civil certification standards (eg FAR 23) impose margins above stall to give the operation a reasonable chance of surviving problems .. such as turbulence, engine failure, etc.
The military approach acknowledges that there will be operational requirements which dictate operating to a higher level of risk and mishap probability .. ie lower speeds and lower margins above stall. As would be expected, the usual military certification and release to service protocols spend a lot of time and effort in providing crews with detailed information regarding just where the boundary limits are for such operations.
The uncomfortable risk with many civil operations purporting to be quasi-STOL is that this FT work up work isn't done and the pilot is put closer to real operational limits than the civil design standard protocols envisage.
Civil and military certification .. two very different animals.
I would expect that the operational documentation for civil versus military operations on the two aircraft you cite might be quite different in detail ?
Perhaps others who have access to both sets of data might be able to comment ?
Certainly, the POH approved data can be expected to comply with the nominated standards.