The big-bore, short-stroke combination has been invented every 10 years as a new idea. Since re-balancing is required anyway, it offers no advantage over the same displacement (81.9") achieved through stroke increase (4-3/8" is about the same at 81.2"), which is more effective. More stroke will eventually limit engine life and maximum RPM, but not near where you are now. You might get a better squish band - but only if you actually machine the parts yourself, they won't come like that. The flywheels also offer you a choice of at least 3 weights.
I have no experience with such a combination in a Pan, but a big-bore stock-stroke Chubble turned out to be a delightful torque machine, able to pull a fully-loaded sidecar faster than anyone should, for several round trips to Sturgis from Illinois.
The owner insisted upon an overhaul at ~25,000 miles, as he had never gotten that out of a motor before. I found nothing to fix, leading me to conclude that it is a very durable formula.
....Cotten Note: It was originally an 80", but that is still a 'short stroke' to a lot of us.
Certainly preferable to stock bore, needs smaller compression dome for the same ratio, no down-side except that it's slightly more knock-prone than a std. bore if the quench is too large, but has better quench than stock if the quench is properly limited. You're going to rebalance it, yes?