An N=1 example of an instance where a line of reasoning produced an accurate answers proves that it -can- produce the right answer, but does not, in fact, tell

An N=1 example of an instance where a line of reasoning produced an accurate answers proves that it -can- produce the right answer, but does not, in fact, tell you anything beyond that about how likely it is to produce the right answer in any given case. So "I've just demonstrated how it was [...] a reasonable heuristic" is simply unsupported here. If it's working for you, great, maybe you're encountering a different subset of communities than I am, maybe you've been lucky, maybe I'm simply dead wrong, but getting Elm-maintainer-style passive aggressive over somebody pointing out logical flaws in the underlying claim as to why the heuristic is 'proven correct' is a rather unfortunate way to respond to what was written as constructive criticism of said logic.