A few concerns to me in this thread -
(a) in most jurisdictions, the operator and pilot have a joint responsibility to meet whatever the local regulatory requirements are.
(b) generally, in the absence of terrain constraints, the takeoff, as such, is considered to terminate at 1500ft above ARP/runway level.
(c) if the terrain so dictates, the obstacle clearance must be continued until the aircraft is in a position to adopt cruise terrain clearance requirements
(d) one ought not to consider other aircraft Types for establishing an escape profile due to the differences in EACH segment which might compromise such a strategy .. especially the third segment distance in respect of distant obstacles.
(e) if the operator does not schedule an escape, then duty of care would normally require guidance in the manual as to whether the various (or some) SIDs are covered, or whether the scheduled RTOW is based on straight ahead .. or, whatever .. whichever might be the case, the company performance data provided for pilot guidance MUST declare the story.
(f) be VERY wary of assuming anything as different companies and ops engineers have varying policies and interpretations of what the regulatory processes might require.
(g) if there is doubt, and there is no company published guidance, negotiate with ATC to fly the published V1 cut escape until a suitable circling height is achieved AEO, then manoeuvre to the departure track. If you get a later failure during the takeoff, you are in front of the action. The only occasion when this might not be appropriate is for a runway from an aerodrome for which there are no obstacle problems.
Anything else is a bit like putting your head in the lion's mouth, methinks ..