As a sanity check I also calculated the JSX-2 and got 38% as neutral point, which aligns good with their stated allowed CoG margins of 18% to 30%. Something I noticed, was the super bad tail volume with a factor of only 0.42 in case that I calculate with the projected surface, but even with full area, I dont get much above 0.5
Well, it would make it feel more like a jet. It's not as much fun if you pull back and lose all your energy in one turn.
# # #
Edit: Let me take the opportunity to get on my soapbox here and expound on my criticism* of Raymer's book. The tables you see scattered throughout, are based on parametrized values from successful aircraft. This approach to airplane design is based on analogical thinking.
What does this mean? Example; you sized your tail based on the table value for "jet trainer." Well, jet trainers are used for contact ( formation) training and for instrument approaches, so they benefit from static pitch stability. Jet trainers are also two-seat tandem seating, which means the cg varies over a wide range. Also, military aircraft tend to exist forever, and traditionally they gain avionics weight as they age. A large stabilizer is helpful for this. On the other hand, you will not see a jet trainer optimized for efficient cruise at your thrust settings.
Since you optimized for faster cruise and good takeoff/landing performance, it's not clear why you used the jet trainer sizing. It can be justified: maybe the cg change is comparable because your airplane is a lot smaller, maybe you also want the option to use heavy nose gear, etc. etc. but you haven't actually stated any of this.
To base your solution on first principles, you have to figure out what the tail is actually supposed to do. Maybe you need to list out key points where the tail is supposed to be most efficient, generate the most lift, or whatever. Eventually, instead of the assumption, "my airplane is analogous to a jet trainer," you end up with a more basic assumption, "the thing I put on the back of my airplane is analogous to a wortmann profile wing" (for example). This is a much easier assumption to justify. But it takes longer.
Your tail sizing looks correct. It's a good idea to use the tabular values, because it prevents you from getting bogged down in triviality.And you are also cognizant of the assumptions you make, and to what extent they align with your goals and values.
* I use "criticism" in the literary sense