If it were from a spirit of curiosity, none of those points would have been made, because you would have soon realized you're not responding to anything in my c

If it were from a spirit of curiosity, none of those points would have been made, because you would have soon realized you're not responding to anything in my comment. The more-curious version of your comment would be, "That's a good point. I can't quite put my finger on what makes this particular safety/cost tradeoff different from the other cases, especially given that it maintains the same general level of safety through different decisions. Something still seems off, but I'm not at the point where I can rigorously justify it." Does that about summarize where you stand?