Without getting into the nitty gritty of it all there is one point Ii'd like to make.
DHD, you're absolutely correct about the 'risk' management- although I prefer to call it 'threat and error' management- with a side order of 'benefit' thrown in!
I guess the difference is that by going to the full length decreased the 'threat (which I acknowledge was relatively minor) with no loss of commercial benefit. All of aviation has to be weighed up in 'threat' and 'benefit'. What is the threat of the intersection take off? Is it worth the benefit (and there often IS a benefit) is the next question that has to be asked.
What is the threat of intersecction, greater than full length. What was the benefit? Increased taxi way utilisation for company aircraft? Decreased taxi time and therefore greate schedule reliability? From what I can see in GGs example, there was nil benefit. Therefore, why not lower the threat a bit from 'low' to 'virtually nil'.