One of the stand-outs of the ground war part of the invasion of Iraq was the effectiveness of US recon in force runs, or thunder runs
Those thunder runs were more proof of the failure of the Iraqi state and military than actual effective combat strategy.
They were a high speed rampage meant to lay down spot of fire in hopes of everyone panicking and not getting the chance of mounting a effective counter attack. Like Michael Wittmen's tigar one rampage. The success was primary because of violence of action, with a very high chance of actually losing vehicles in the act.
I think that may be what the PLA may wish to use their new gen light tanks for in a far wider range of locations and missions than traditional light tank use by the PLA, especially in urban environments.
range of missions makes some sensealthough I doubt urban would prove to be the best. Amphibious and airborne make sense because of the limiting factor of a 50 + ton MBT trying to swim or be air dropped.
Urban combat is a whole other nut to crack. It's not about the weight or size of the Tank light tanks are not that much smaller then an MBT. It's about the support. In urban the Tank looses the long range stand off and it's critical to support the tank with infantry. That is the biggest continuous lesson from world war 2 onwards. When tanks roll into cities they are surrounded. Chechnya, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Palistine, Lebenon and more. Drive a tank into a urban area and it's an ambush zone with attacks from above, below,the sides the front and rear no tank can survive that on it's own. Light tanks don't really have an advantage over MBT here as even there speed can be countered with obsticals.