Pre- mid- or post-?

I would say that it does. Here's the opening statement from our main encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 1001:

[quote] SON OF MAN
In Hebrew this is mainly a translation of the expression ben-´a·dham´. Instead of referring to the person, Adam, ´a·dham´ is here used generically for "mankind" so that the expression ben-´a·dham´ means, in essence, "a son of mankind, a human, an earthling son." (Ps 80:17; 146:3; Jer 49:18, 33) The phrase is often employed in parallel with other Hebrew terms for "man," namely, ´ish, meaning "a male person" (compare Nu 23:19; Job 35:8; Jer 50:40) and ´enohsh´, "a mortal man." (Compare Ps 8:4; Isa 51:12; 56:2.) At Psalm 144:3 the "son of mortal man" is ben-´enohsh´, while the Aramaic equivalent (bar ´enash´) appears at Daniel 7:13.
In Greek the expression is hui·os´ tou an·thro´pou, the latter part of the phrase representing the Greek generic word for "man" (an´thro·pos).-Mt 16:27.
In the Hebrew Scriptures the most frequent occurrence of the expression is in the book of Ezekiel, where over 90 times God addresses the prophet as "son of man." (Eze 2:1, 3, 6, 8) The designation as so used apparently serves to emphasize that the prophet is simply an earthling, thus heightening the contrast between the human spokesman and the Source of his message, the Most High God. The same designation is applied to the prophet Daniel at Daniel 8:17. [end quote]
[Insight then goes into the Greek Scripture occurrences, which I referred to]
Note their examples include Ps 80. And would you say that this is good advice from Ps 146:3? Put not your trust in princes, nor in the [Church], in whom there is no help.

Do I agree with Insight? Yes. Why? Because my church told me to ... Just kidding!

I always liked what I understood of Occam's Razor. Given what I know of ben-´a·dham and the example in Ezekiel, I would need some sort of 'smoking gun' to move me away from the simplest interpretation of "son of man" everywhere I see it.

Contrary to many intelligent and devout Jews who expect two [or more] Messiahs, I find both in Jesus: He did suffer (1 Pe 2:24) and he is living forever (1 Tim 6:16). Moreover, he will fulfill the 'conquering David' prophecies. (Rev 6:2)

On another thread I listed my scriptural requirements for God's "kingdom come, on earth as it is in Heaven". No more war, sickness, poverty, anger, etc. None. 'For now, though, I see through a glass, darkly.' (1 Cor 13:12, KJV) Now I see these things done inconsistently and imperfectly, but they are being done, even by men such as I am. That would not be possible without Jehovah's spirit, I believe. (Zec 4:6) As they are my "church", I don't see the last fulfillment of any "son of man" prophecies as you understand them. And, as I have shown elsewhere, we are unique in not having or supporting a physical army.

Here's one touchstone I use: Almost every religion I know of has the theology, 'Die good, go to Heaven; die bad, go to Hell.' On my first exposure to serious bible study I learned that these are not the alternatives Jehovah purposed originally or at any time since.
Here's another: An atheist studying the manuscripts would be forced to agree that the name of the God of the bible is not Lord or LORD or God or anything but Jehovah, or the local equivalent for the Hebrew YHWH.
Here's another: Both the above points are true even if the bible is myth! Moby Dick is fiction, yet no reasonable person would disagree that it's an allegorical novel about whaling, and that the Captain's name is Ahab.
I can read; I understand what I read; it's in the Book.
Where will you go when you die?
Unless etc. scriptures are NWT
Doug