Are you saying that when when cornering at a constant speed, if a slide starts, the vehicle will rotate differently to a front-wheel-drive or rear-wheel-drive vehicle?
Or that when cornering, if you accelerate enough to spin the wheels, then an AWD vehicle will rotate around the middle?
For the 1st case, when you slide because there is not enough traction available for that speed, on that surface (e.g. driving too fast, or encountering ice), I wouldn't have thought the axles that power is delivered will make a large difference to how the vehicle rotates. Either the front loses traction, or the rear, or both. Wouldn't the weight distribution be more relevant than the driven axles?
For the acceleration example, again I think of either the front losing traction, the rear, or both. Front-wheel-drive would lead to the front losing traction, RWD the rear losing traction, and AWD ... I'm not sure. With some systems, it's plausible that neither the front or rear would spin until both lost traction simultaneously. I tend to think a 4 wheel slide would be similar to understeer in a front-wheel drive car, but perhaps a little more like sliding sideways out of the lane, rather than plowing straight ahead. This doesn't seem to me like rotating around the middle, so I feel like I'm missing something.
To be honest, the idea of AWD making the vehicle rotate around the middle (and rear-wheel-drive making the vehicle rotate around the...front?) seems like the persistent and widespread idea of AWD allowing a vehicle to corner faster at a constant speed. My thought is that it's a misconception, but I'm happy to be wrong!
I can see AWD allowing better engine-braking than FWD in some low-traction situations, but I don't think it would make much difference if trying to stop quickly. I think for modern cars, using engine braking would almost never provide quicker stopping, or more controlled stopping than brakes alone.
Regarding three pedals, you could downshift in an two-pedal automatic too couldn't you?