SSSETOWTF
I'm sure they are looking at every case. Having been involved in the early stages of looking at RVL myself, I don't doubt that the mechanics, engineeing and safety of them are being given a very serious looking at and I can guess exactly where the 35 kts has come from. Lets be in no doubt - RVL is entirely possible as a means to recover a Dave B with the required bringback.
My concern (apart from the other one!) is the apparent lack of similar effort being applied to the deck management issues. Glib comments from either the IPT or DEC along the lines of "we couldn't do it operationally on C de G as its deck is too small, but CVF is much bigger" ignore the reason why CVF is the size it is. The deck is sized for various different packages in various different flypro - there will be precious little "extra" deck space with a full TAG.
The size of recovery will also have an impact on recovery interval, compounded by RVL. If you've got a pure VL recovery, then the interval between them can be relatively compressed - you can even recover multiples "in line" if necessary. Reliance on a longer runway for RVL will actually take some of that flex away and result in a longer recovery for a given number of a/c, hence more fuel required, hence impact on bringback.
With the decision for B vs C looming, this needs to be fully sorted before making the great leap.