Falcon 9($69.75m) is priced about the same as Mitsubishi H-IIA(within 20% of $100m) anyway. Performance difference is within ballparks and Mitsubishi is confide

Falcon 9($69.75m) is priced about the same as Mitsubishi H-IIA(within 20% of $100m) anyway. Performance difference is within ballparks and Mitsubishi is confident that they're going to get successor H3 cost half as much, which is so far just an ambitious goal but they're not full of liars either. H3 is also 100% expendable with zero accommodation for reuse or extreme cadence operations. So it's either SpaceX had long established reuse and charging egregious margins to NASA, or Japanese aerospace labor is practically free, or only first stage recovery technology was realized and cost savings is still an open question. Doesn't the situation look like a mix of all three, I mean, how can it be the case that SpaceX had cut cost by like 80% and US GAO is totally cool with that?