If you have solid evidence that WFH is worse, then sure maybe you have a point. But if your hypothesis remains unproven, you can't prove it by hand waving and

If you have solid evidence that WFH is worse, then sure maybe you have a point. But if your hypothesis remains unproven, you can't prove it by hand waving and saying that the absence of evidence is proof of its validity...your hypothesis is just unproven. One has solid proof (WFH), one does not (RTO). The logical, putative thing to do is to respect the solid proof, not the hand-wavy argument.