I've said for years that the cats need a front wing between the "toons" controlled by an "angle of attack" meter from aircraft tech.

This tech has been around for a long time. If the nose gets too high, the wing deploys to push it back down. In the old fighter jets in the early 80's they took readings like 60 times per second and made corrections pilots couldn't respond to quick enuff.

Does anybody have a link to these guidelines?

The current boat speeds make it VERY hard to keep everything in one piece,in the event of accident.

I don't find anything through Google, which is a shame. I made the effort to reach out to George Linder (one of the authors) for a copy, and had the pleasure of meeting him a few years later. It's unforgiveable that, 25 years later, these guidelines are virtually unknown.

Plane s dont have all the weight in the back of it.

The problem with blow overs and capsizing is the forces that are imparted on the structures that were not designed to be subjected to 10+ g hits such as decks and hatches. There are certainly ways to use the wing in ground effect that these boats use to help counteract the likelihood of a blow over or capsize.

Could an active computerized wing in the back designed to give "lift", in conjunction with a front wing be the answer? When the attitude gets too steep, maybe the back of the boat needs to actually come up to flatten the angle of attack.

Look at CSprays boat. Maybe a passive set of wings would allow the boat to always run at a flatter attitude in relationship to the water. It could be that Ocke Mannerfelt may have something here, but I don't think that the design has been run hard on anything larger than a 28. Vector has the 40, but I don't know how hard it has been run. It seems that at speed, wings would at least keep the heavy stern from trying to pass the lighter front like in the BT accident, or it would keep the stern from landing so hard and cause the bow to submarine.

You're certainly on the right track as far as buildable solutions.