ORIGINAL: Bax
Actually, after you made the incidence changes, your wings had the same "lift", but the trim angle of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator was different. People tend to confuse the fact that a model that needs down elevator for level flight does not mean it has "too much lift". No such thing. You had a situation where you needed to alter the trim of the model to make the control positions as you desired them. You could have gotten the same resolution by changing the linkage to give you the down elevator you needed to achieve level flight. Your solution, though, would look better. Also, because you altered the relationship between the top and bottom wings, you likely got a little-bit better tracking of the model. Originally, you had the top wing at -1/4 degree in relation to the bottom wing, and you ended-up with the top wing at -1 degree to the bottom wing. Model biplanes with the top wing at a lightly-lower angle of incidence that the lower wing usually track a bit better.
Bax,
I think that in trying to keep readers from being confused you took exception with my use of the term "too much lift" a little too hastily. Of course lift always equals aircraft weight in stabilized flight. However, with excessive positive wing incidence, and elevator trim set to anything near neutral, an unstable condition exists: more lift than gravity, the very state that allows an aircraft to pitch upwards and climb. I do not consider it technically incorrect to describe this as a state of "too much lift". It creates an uncommanded and unintended pitch up from an undesired excess of...lift!
You are absolutely correct to point out that it is a matter of trim, and that (stabilized) flight could be maintained in such a situation by trimming the elevators such that wing incidence relative to the airflow (not the fuse datum) is reduced, returning a "stabilized" state of level flight with no pitch-up. However, the tail would be following the front of the fuse at a considerably higher altitude. Works, but looks pretty goofy and creates lots of drag.
Hope this is not too esoteric. I think we both are on the same page but saying it in a different way. Thanks for your comments about "tracking" with various relative wing incidence settings, one to another, in bi-planes.
(sorry, previous post "quote" was goofed up due to my lack of familiarity with online posting. I'm learning.)