That is, a 1 knot exceedence of V1 will result in a 10 knot overrun on a limiting runway
Hadn't seen that before but it is in the ball park I would expect to see - the concerns come down to the two items
(a) penalty lost distance associated with the overspeed itself
(b) gradient of the stopping part (and this is the reason that one MUST keep the anchors pushed into the floor until the aircraft lurches to a stop in the angry situation .. more than a few folk have perceived that all was well .. eased off the brakes .. and then danced into the weeds).
My view, on an ASD limiting runway is that I'd rather err on the side of continuing a couple of knots low rather than rejecting a few knots high on the historical stats.
Assuming I am on my 10,000 ft field...balanced field today is 5000 feet...
Of course your argument probably will be valid from the physics of the thing .. you have some fat to elect to reduce speed on reverse or distance and then use brakes if you were in a brake energy limit situation.
However, the Citation (as I recall you fly) is a low Vmcg, low V1 aircraft and not typical of the situation which most heavy drivers face. This is especially the case for the larger twin aisle machines. GF is talking C5A and that has the double whammy of being big iron with flea power motors.
The underlying arguments and concerns, however, are those of
(a) risk management/control (trying to stack the numbers in the pilot's favour on the day) in a rational and objective manner
(b) minimising the need for super rapid decision making with only a fraction of the story to hand at the time .. ie adhere to SOP unless the situation is pretty clear cut. Routinely winging these processes at the time has been shown to be a less than optimal approach over the years.
although the argument could be made that my using TRs
.. true but, other than in contaminated conditions, mainly a maker of noise and not much stopping value
better braking technique
.. that's a silly statement to make .. however, we would be interested in knowing what better technique you might propose compared to that used by the TP .. which will be THE best for the aircraft .. that's why the TP is employed for the purpose.
soaking up manufacturer's fudge factor
.. while there are fudge factors built into most performance data, ASD is pretty well hard data. We have, for instance, negotiated time delays (which usually are quite realistic) and the delay factor required by A/L 42 (which is not all that fat).
Just which manufacturer's fudge factors might you have been thinking of ?