I'm not. That's the point.
You're the one saying that there is one, and only one, valid standard: "objective" history and "objective" culture, "accuracy" trumping absolutely all other considerations, without ANY further need for thought or effort on the creator's part. If it's accurate, it's the right thing to do; if it's not accurate, it's the wrong thing to do. The one and only question you think people need to ask is, "Is this something that would have happened in the time and place in question?"
I have repeatedly said things like "accuracy is a tool," emphasizing that it is one tool among many. I have repeatedly said that these questions are difficult and that they simply do not have universal answers. I have explicitly, and at great (probably tedious!) length, specified that there IS no simple standard, no bar you can clear and then be absolutely justified under all possible circumstances. I have given real, practical examples about how this sort of thing can be extremely complicated and that absolutes and universals, if they exist at all, are liable to be weak at best. I have specified, more than once, that it is a matter of judicious thought, of carefully weighing various concerns, and then making a choice. To steal and repurpose the phrasing used by the Bureaucratic Deva from OotS: "You must do what you think is best, to the limit of your abilities—including your ability to judge what is best." You will, almost certainly, make mistakes. Making a good-faith effort to prevent them, and a good-faith effort to address them when you end up making mistakes anyway, is what matters. Not a lack of fault, but real work to avoid fault, and real work to fix your faults when they show up. Because, eventually, they will; nobody's perfect.
Am I everyone?