That's the conventional explanation of superelevation, although I worded it in sort of an odd way. But I'm describing the same thing that e.g. Wikipedia does. Superelevation directs the force of the car more "straight down" in relation to the rails which improves centering and balance of the load by the same token. The thing I said about "shifting gravity" is unnecessarily confusing because it depends on reference frame.

I think for low-speed freight the balance needs to be pretty close on to ideal to meet regulations, e.g. FRA regulations give calculations for acceptable ranges. But since it's dependent on running speed it's hard to get correct for freight and passenger mixed operation which is the subject of this FRA report that has a lot of detail on the calculations: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/19...

Hmm, well the conventional explanation that I know of is that it's simply to reduce the lateral forces acting on your train and more importantly on the payload you're carrying - especially with passenger trains it's passenger comfort that's the limiting factor by far, not safety against derailment or overturning (which is how tilting trains can work, since tilting the train body only reduces the forces felt inside the passenger compartment, but not the forces acting at the wheel-rail level).

I see what you mean with regards to how it's also described on Wikipedia – only I've got some currentish (European) literature in front of me which claims that cant and the resulting cant deficiency/excess are only of secondary importance with regards to wheel and rail wear (the main factors are simply the curve radius itself and the construction of the running gear of the trains operating over the curve), and as such the main importance of cant is simply ride comfort. Likewise it also claims that according to some practical experiments done by some infrastructure operators, no link could be found between occurrences of cant excess for slower moving heavy freight trains and increased maintenance requirements (Which interestingly somewhat contradicts the corresponding supposition given in your FRA document...).

This also matches the evolution of the design rules on the German national railways – in the 80s there still used to be a relatively elaborate system of determining the allowable cant excess for slower moving trains depending on the annual tonnage of that kinds of trains, but since then at some point that system got dropped and has been radically simplified: The regular cant is simply 55 % of the equilibrium cant and it's up to the design engineer to deviate from that value if necessary (when the speed distribution varies from that of a normal mixed-traffic route).

Interestingly all of that somewhat contradicts the statements given in your linked FRA document. To some extent this can probably be explained by European freight trains being shorter, somewhat lighter (lower axle loads) and also nowadays slightly faster than their American counterparts, and also due to traditionally using somewhat higher allowable cant deficiency values, especially with regards to passenger rolling stock. It likely doesn't explain everything, though, but I don't know enough, either, to reconcile those two differing points of view.