Criss- yep understand what you're saying. My understanding is that at any time a controller should be able to prove a separation standard exists. All I'm following up here is more of the techniques type scenario where a controller is setting things up to maintain, what is a big thing here in OZ, "separation assurance" ie if I fall over dead at the console will everything continue to be separated? I'm taking it that one step further here by making allowance for the possibility of a missed approach / go around. Now if a controller wants to just keep blindly firing aircraft without any thought as to the ramifications if it goes wrong then fine, but I just don't know what your defence is when the judge asks you why you didn't make allowance for the B747 which, in the go-around, collected the C182 at the upwind end of the runway and hence a smouldering heap of metal!
Sometimes we just have to stand back and, regardless of how we MIGHT interpret our manuals and standards, have a think about what we're trying to achieve and the safest and most expedient way to do it within the boundaries of those rules.