You know it's comments like this that cause so many people to get in flame wars with you. Your position is not inherently correct, so you need not assume that if someone disagrees with you then it MUST be because there is a misunderstanding or a failure in reading comprehension.
I read what you had to say. I just disagree with it.
Specifically where i note that versatility is only rewarded in a very specific set of circumstances, i.e the ability to effect non-combat situations is highly dependent on what the DM decides to throw at you, and is thus passive. The core of the game and survivability of the party is determined mostly in combat. Combat is the 'spotlight'.
I understand this attitude, I just vehemently disagree with it. This kind of thinking is responsible for most of the bad ideas in 3.5e AFAIAC (e.g., pokemounts.)
The oringinal 3e designers did not approach class design in this manner, and the core classes still don't reflect this sort of thinking. Else the fighter would be patently overpowered, as other classes like rogues do have noncombat abilities factored into their balance.
Now it is true that combat is a major part, thus the reason you see things like sneak attack to help keep rogues effective and limited spell slots to keep mages from contributing more combat damage than fighters. But, again, you are creating a false dichotomy. Just because combat has enough of an emphasis that most classes are optimized to have an effective role in combat does not mean that combat is (or should be) the only determiner of balance.
Also please note that damage/round means on the part of the party. Combat has firms 'roles' and this is the place where it is most appropriate to discuss role balance. I aknowledged this in my intial post, but you decided to simplify it for whatever reason.
Since you are not saying something I agree with here, I don't see how I missed anything. Characters are most certainly balanced without outside of combat issues in mind. Hint: if they weren't, then there would be no CR/ECL dichotomy.
Givin the extreme limitations on time in most encounters, most abilities simply don't show up in play,
Given that most adventures involve several combat encounters and several noncombat challenges, enough will certainly show up in play that it certainly will be telling.
If you are only having one short encounter a day all the time, then it is a wonder that single classes arcane casters aren't dominating your game. Fortunately, that is not the core assumption behind the way classes and adventures are structured.
In short, what you really seem to be telling me here is that EK and MT work the way you run a game. That's fine, if it works for the way you play, then by all means use them.
(Sorry - those full spellcaster advancement PrCs bug me.)
