Debatable. Crews have come to similar grief from flap mis-selections, weight errors, takeoff starting point errors etc. N1 isn't the be-all end-all.
I would argue it's not the EPR that's the issue; it's the lack of position/acceleration monitoring.
A couple of manufacturers have started pushing
Take-Off Monitoring that does a better job than just waiting for V-1 but I would argue they could go further. And given that take-off margins are being sliced increasingly thinly, probably should go further.
I would argue that you could have a system that continually calculates current position, stopping distance, climb performance etc. and can then tell you, continuously:
- What the stopping margin would be if you aborted now (runway remaining, brake energy remaining etc.) - given the discussions around the Russian A321 that hit birds a few years back, this could even tell you if you're OK to abort after rotation/liftoff given sufficient runway remaining.
- What the rotation/climb margins would be if you suffered an engine failure now; could you continue.
- Expected duration of the overlap between safe abort and safe continue. If this is decreasing, something is reducing your performance below expectations. If it's negative, there will be a period where you couldn't safely handle an engine failure.
This would potentially give discretion in the period where both aborting and continuing are safe.
All that said, there's definitely a lot of human factors reasons why we have a clear go/no-go and I'm not necessarily saying it should be dropped. But it might be better served by a go/no-go
point, and/or some further nuance.