SC - are you therefore disagreeing with the CHIRP 'statement' or the fact that they have even mentioned the word 'commercial'? I prefer to look at CHIRP as taking a pragmatic approach to safety, highlighting issues and spreading the word. Taking the 'hot' topic of fuel loads, are you saying that CHIRP should just support unlimited excesses (as they are 'safe') and totally ignore the fact that the airline would soon be bankrupt if these uneccessary extra loads were carried all the time, or should they promote the sensible approach that fuel should be loaded as needed to assure as much safety as is practical - i.e. the 'commercial' approach?
The basic statement "Commercial Air Transport operations must be safe and also commercially viable." is surely beyond criticism - or the 'operation' ceases to be 'commercial'.
In a real world safety and survival as a business are not two separate unassociated items. CHIRP is simply reflecting the real world. If they chose to de-focus on reality, what credibilty would they have?