Understood and agree with most of your points, however.

1.

a. We're debating it a lot, which we don't want to do, so we're going to make a change to stop the debate is not a valid argument.

b. Yes, removing code simplifies the codebase. Why is this important? We don't do this generally! Code evolves to become more complex and intricate over time to give greater functionality and ease of use.

c. Potentially yes.

For me this still doesn't answer my question of "Why remove the limit?" The above answers still answer in the "why not remove the limit" framework.

So here's my answer, you don't make changes with unknown and unintended consequences in such a critical code base unless the potential upside FAR outweighs the potential downside. Nobody is describing a potential upside, only "it doesn't matter". There is probably a potential upside, but we don't know it.

Taproot was a prime example of unintended consequences of change. An attempt to combine multiple transactions and scripts into a condensed merkle tree of verifiable branches gave us JPEGs in the first place.

2. I think we mostly have accord

3. I think we mostly agree

4. I think we mostly agree

Ocean mining point.

I agree that Ocean are pushing their rather minor argument to extremes. We are being distracted on both sides by a moot point. However, despite both sides pettiness, I mostly support Oceans long term goals and so support them in the wider picture, while forgiving this petit squabble.