No flips for you!
You preserved the rhetorical win but disclaimed the work. You've established that you firmly believe that my point is incorrect, and that thinking along the lines you've sketched will show it, thereby claiming a rhetorical win, but you've disclaimed the intent to actual complete the teamwork/ thinking. This is attempting to set up some cover of rigor and fairness when the boiled down output is naught but you saying you think I'm wrong.I am simply outlining a program of analysis/research to address the question. It wasn't intended to be an attack on anyone's position. In terms of talking about 'theorycrafting' what I am saying is we won't derive stronger and more useful conclusions merely by inventing more examples. Now, going beyond that, and I think we'd need to go significantly beyond that, might turn out to be rather more than can be accomplished in a thread, so maybe you can object to the agenda on the basis of feasibility. However, I'm treating everything discussed as an open question, not me trying to prove something to you. That is, if such a project was undertaken, my feeling is it would support my position, but I'm not creating a hill to die on here. Its a hypothesis, not gospel.
I'll happily accept a reasoned rebuttal. I will point out that the standout examples of story now play all feature robust mechanical resolution systems and eschew consensus resolution. MLwM does this, DitV does this, BW does this, PbtA does this, FitD does this, even 4e does this. Heck, Cthulhu Dark does this.