Yes the loss rate is not dependent on the numerical sat value, and *is* dependent (inversely) on the economic value. I agree that my message was blurring and confusing these two clearly correct points.

But that dependence on economic value can't be assumed to be some very simple formula such as inverse linear (l.r. = k/value say), albeit that's a sound starting point. It's true that this has a nice asymptote at l.r. = 0 but we don't know if there is some other asymptote/floor; also, we might *think* that twice as much effort expended (because twice as much value) leads to half the loss rate, but .. does it? i wouldn't be surprised to see some exponential component there. it's fascinating to analyze, but it's hard to do more than theorize, because we have a tremendous and, likely, impossible challenge in trying to measure or predict loss rates.