I think it's likely that nobody in this conversation actually disagrees with anyone else about how frequent such dependencies are. But the "law" is not literal

I think it's likely that nobody in this conversation actually disagrees with anyone else about how frequent such dependencies are. But the "law" is not literally true, so to make it useful you have to mentally add some reservation: "no, of course I don't mean that someone will be depending on a detail like _that_". The trouble then is that it doesn't work usefully as a piece of advice: if you're not already experienced enough to know where to draw the line, it doesn't help you get any more accurate. It's like saying "however big you think X is, it's bigger than you thought". But maybe I'm wrong about what you believe. Do you actually think the "law" as stated is literally true (without using a quibble like "well, there's no upper bound on what we mean by 'sufficient'")?