I've never spent significant time working an aircraft with tail mounted engines (I was responsible for the 727 for a while, but it was decades out of production at the time and there wasn't much going on). However my engineering judgement says that with tail mounted engines, the problem is going to be dramatically reduced tail effectiveness due to the reverser efflux blanking the tail control surfaces. So it would be a fundamentally different problem than the one faced by Lauda where the aircraft almost instantly rolled into a dive due to the dramatic loss of lift on one side.
My understanding of the F100 crash (where the reverser deployed shortly after takeoff) was they would have been OK if they'd just left the engine alone after the feedback pulled the throttle to idle. But somehow they managed to brute force the throttle back up to high power and that's when they lost control.
BTW, the FARs (25.939) still don't mandate the 3rd level of protection, still spelling out that an uncommanded T/R deployment must be controllable. To certify, Boeing has had to petition for an "Equivalent Level of Safety" (ELOS) - basically showing that it's as safe as if the aircraft was controllable because it's shown it'll never happen. Providing an ELOS is a royal pain in the rear compared to showing direct compliance. EASA is better - they updated the corresponding CS to say that you either have to show it's controllable - OR - demonstrate that an uncommanded deployment is "extremely improbable" (which is defined as 10E-9 hr. or less).