This is true from a tail-lift viewpoint, except that it doesn't consider the inherent instability of a cambered wing. This instability must be overcome with a positive static margin (or at least a flyable one). There are various ways to do this. I believe these "tucks" we have been writing about have more to do with the wing's inherent instability (especially the strongly cambered FF model wings), than with tail-lift simply exceeding wing lift. It seems unlikely to me that a horiz tail that is a fraction of the area of the wing, and has a smaller incidence angle, is simply generating more lift than the wing.

As the airspeed increases (AOA decreases), the AC of a cambered wing moves aft, and if the tail (nose up) moment doesn't equal or exceed this wing-generated nose-down moment, voila, sudden nose-down pitching moment that can be difficult or impossible to recover from. Obviously these lifting tail designs can work, if we operate them in the airspeed (AOA) range in which they are stable. Trouble is, most models don't have airspeed or AOA indicators.

Canards do have the fundamental difference from aft-tail airplanes in that the canard always lifts positively, which makes them more efficient, since the total lift load is shared between the canard and the wing. Canard sizing is tricky though, because if you make the canard too big, the airplane becomes pitch-unstable by overcoming the wing's stability contribution. Remember, it's behind the CG so a canard's main wing is stabilizing for the whole bird. That's one reason canards generally have much longer takeoff runs than "equivalent" aft-tail airplanes. You can't make the canard big enough to raise the nose at a low airspeed, without making it unstable, or causing the canard to stall after the wing, which is BAD. With an aft-tail airplane, you can almost always make the horizontal tail bigger if you need more pitch authority, and it also increases stability.