Essential Buzz. Your reply quoting a Boeing advice on the matter certainly has got my attention. I suppose you wouldn't have that advice on paper would you? It opens up the subject more than I thought. Please PM me with the info or where I could lay my hands on it. Where there is runway length well in excess of the balanced field length content especially allowing for reduced braking on wet or slippery runways then the abort decision may not be critical, although it may frighten the passengers. I sometimes wonder if pilots are fully aware of how much runway is to spare and keep it up their sleeve for a nasty event.
Simulator instructors occasionally see things that horrify them when it comes to rejected take off actions and I have no doubt in my mind that in the real event the chances are delays will occur due indecision and dare I say momentary shock and incompetency and an over-run occurs. Depending on the over-run area characteristics (road, ditch, cliff edge and you name it), someone is going to get hurt. There is no shortage of documentary evidence on this subject going back fifty years in old ICAO Accident Reports.
A high speed rejected take off on minimum runway length is something of a gamble that all actions are faultlessly executed. A decision to continue in the case of a late config warning is also a gamble. Historically the former has resulted in more fatalities than the latter. Or so I believe personally, anyway.