Very valid observations there Lomcevak.
Classes of aeroplanes that are routinely flown manually by high ability pilots to achieve high accuracy manoeuvres probably don't, as you suggest, need much consideration of safety related handling qualities minima of this nature. Picking two pertinent types - the Typhoon or Extra 300; both will mostly be handflown, by high ability pilots, whose primarily objective is accurate manoeuvering for operational purposes. Therefore the use of operational HQ criteria can reasonably supercede safety oriented HQ criteria.
However, I think that you're on shakey ground assuming that the range of either transport or GA pilots have a particularly high lower threshold of pilot handling ability. Any GA instructor or airline training captain should be able to offer some entertaining anecdotes about the pilots at the mininum threshold of continued activity. Whether you absolutely need aLSS
gradient minima is debatable, but there will be significant value in the ability to fly the aeroplane accurately at reasonably low workload levels. You could on the other hand make a much stronger case for the PFTS minimum value Mike Bromfield proposed in his work, for the obvious reasons that not stalling inadvertently is much more important than holding speed accurately away from the stall.
"Role relation" ! - I recall somebody teaching me all about that once
a concept much easier to introduce overtly in military than civil flight test, although certainly both should be include it fully in their test planning.
G