Its all very well claiming that due to CAVOK it is save to go with minimum PLOG fuel. This strikes me as inadvisable in the extreme.
Taking less seems criminally irresponsible. Firstly, by taking less you must be able to prove, at the subsequent court of enquiry, what information you were privy to that led to your judgement being better than the supplier of your PLOG. I challenge anyone to convince a court of that.
Secondly, all that stuff about within x minutes and miles and a landing assured etc etc. Again I challenge anyone to defend themselves aganst the C of E's enquiry, "Captain, just how did you judge, whilst over Belgium, that a heard of deer was not going to charge across the runway in front of you at destination?" I do not believe that the phrase "if landing is assured" has a meaning that I'd bet an empty beer can on if it ccame to a legal argument.
Clearly you can't defend such a fuel policy. So perhaps best not try your luck, and ensure you never plan to arrive anywhere without a healthy buffer between planned arrival fuel and a "MAYDAY" call that will invalidate your pension.