Yes, stability, and controllability.  I'd add some comments.
    CAFE flew Fred Baron's N9BF at fwd CG, aft CG, and measured elevator
stick forces per G, and graphed htat and compared it to similar results from
a Cessna 150 and a Wittman W-10 Tailwind.  They found the L320 at aft CGs
had a greatly diminished stick force required.  He also added "Momentary
distractions cause the plane to wander more in pitch attitude." Two
conditions often related to unintentional entry into stall-spins.
Somewhere also I think a former AF test pilot did a simmilar analysis of the
flight controls and he commented that  the elevator forces were lighter than
those programmed into prsent-day fighters.  So, here's an area that could be
improved.  I'm trying to do that with my L235, adding anti-servo trim tab
area to the aft part of the elevator... which will increase the pilot's
required pounds of pull per G.  Will report on the results.

Terrence,

 

Some of us that fly 320/360s with spring managed elevator trim know just how sensitive pitch can be in the spring dead band.  For myself, I wouldn't want it any other way.  At slow speeds, the proposed anti servo should not be any more effective than the spring as the forces will be lightened.  I like them just the way they are - always light.  This is a reminder that one must pay attention during any flight regime.