I'm not. Not only is the hardware behavior completely knowable and deterministic, but the user is seriously limited in how much they directly affect either the

I'm not. Not only is the hardware behavior completely knowable and deterministic, but the user is seriously limited in how much they directly affect either the hardware behavior or the filesystem. Meanwhile commodity hardware will accept a flush to disk command, and return true when it hasn't flushed it to disk. This is done for performance reasons. I also note that Apple deployed APFS by default only on the most locked down of the two OS's they produce: it's not the default file system on macOS where there's a much wider assortment of user intervention and hardware availability. And HFS+ had enough of its own issues, hence why it was being replaced, that it's entirely plausible the problems are fewer expressly because of the change in file systems. I imagine their intent and hope was exactly that or why bother?