This is utterly false then your conclusion is false
LEVCONS do generate vortices, both canards and LEVCONS generate lift thus they are pitch moment generators why? because both have camber simply like that and have swept leading edges.
Both canards and LEVCONs do deflect as such lift can vary
The Difference is LEVCON does not need to have a gap between it and the main wing and to be above the wing level to be more efficient thus it is a hybrid of the Canard and the LEX combining both in one
To put it in few words it is a vortex flap on a LEX in the case of PAKFA; on LCA is a vortex flap on the inner part of the wing with less angle of sweep on the leading edge, so contrary to F-106, only one segment of the leading edge has it
Perhaps it's a terminology problem on my part. Let's get into the details of the mechanics of the two devices a bit more. As I understand it vortices are generated as sheets of air sheer from highly swept wings. Increasing sweep angle increases the amount of sheering, and therefore the strength of the vortices. Delta wings all naturally generate vortices. LERXes and Chines generate even more powerful vortices due to the greater sweep angle. Where these vortices happen is also important, but because ultimately the whole point of having vortex generators is to have vortical flow over the wings. This is why the vortices generated by LERXes matter.
What about canards in a canard-delta configuration? Canards generate vortices the same way that swept wings do, but when their vortices are shed they pass over the the main wings, which strengthens the vortices delta wings naturally generate. In close coupled configurations, canards can pitch up and down to control how much vortical flow goes over the wings, which then affects lift, and therefore pitching motion. In this configuration the canards themselves do impart some of their own moment with what lifting force is generated from themselves, but most of the pitching moment is actually generated by the wing. The canards, operating as vortex controllers, only affect the lift coefficient and therefore only indirectly affect pitching moment. Part of this is because being closely coupled reduces the canard's moment arm. The other part of it has to do with the size of the canard, and how size has to do with the placement of the vortex its shedding over the wing. In a longer coupling arrangement, the influence of the canard's vortex is far less because of distance from the wing, but its pitching moment is far greater because of distance from the CG. At the same time you often see long coupled canards being bigger because there's greater emphasis on being pitching devices as opposed to vortex controllers. In this arrangement, the canard's influence on pitch is actually directly from a pitching force it imparts through the generation of lift over its own surface. In other words, as opposed to affecting how much force the wing can push up and down as with the short-coupled canards, in a long coupled arrangement the canard actually pushes up or down.
So what about LEVCONS? Well, first, I should take back what I said about LEVCONS not generating vortices. What I meant to and should have said instead is that the LEVCONS's primary function is not to generate vortices (too my knowledge, and from what I've seen), at least not directly and on its own in the same way a close coupled canard or a LERX would. LEVCONS, as I understand them, are more specialized towards the strengthening or weakening of vortices by changing camber over an area of the wing or body where vortex generation begins. This makes them absolutely superb vortex controllers, far better and simpler than close coupled canards. I'm less certain about how strongly they can help the generation of vortices though, since while they can certainly make vortices more powerful, they themselves, at least as implemented, are not shaped or positioned to be ideal generators. More importantly to this discussion, however, is the effect LEVCONS have on pitching. It should probably be clear by now that LEVCONS have more in common with close coupled canards than long coupled canards in that they indirectly affect pitching moment by affecting the lift coefficient, but it is still the wing's control surfaces that are imparting the pitching force. In that sense LEVCONS are not in fact as good as long coupled canards for pitching. Furthermore, they are technically not as good as close coupled canards for pitching either, because while both primarily affect pitching motion indirectly, only one stalls when the wing stalls. A close coupled canard's airflow is independent of the wings, and the close coupled canard itself still can impart a direct pitching force on its own. This means that at an angle when a wing stalls canards, both long and close coupled, can maintain aerodynamic effectiveness and repoint the nose/reorient the plane. A LEVCONS airflow on the other hand is directly tied to airflow over the wings. The LEVCONS imparts zero actual pitching force independent of the wing, to my understanding. It is only able to affect any aerodynamic force vectors by directly affecting the power of the vortices generated over the wing, and cannot impart its own force. Now, I'm not saying on net balance the LEVCONS is an inferior solution. It may just be that the LEVCONS are effective enough through control of vortices or in tandem with another aerodynamic feature that a solution like a long coupled canard isn't necessary. However, on general principle in an all else held equal condition, the long coupled canard is the superior pitching device.
I'm going to caveat everything I say with the fact that I'm not an aerodynamicist. If anyone wants to correct me they should feel free to.
