Pace - now steady on, I posted last time what Cirrus have to say and this was discussed. While the wording has changed over the years effectively Cirrus simply say in the event of an engine failure it is for the pilot to assess whether or not a successful forced landing is an option and if it is not, use the chute. What else could they possibly say? Its obvious that you can neither force land an aircraft or land an aircraft under a chute with any absolute guarantee of a successful outcome. You would simply be opening yourself to the most ridiculous litigation were you to endorse the use of the chute in all circumstances.
Its really very little different from so called cross wind limits. the vast majority of manufacturers have shied awaiting from including a xwl in the POH because they know full well some pilots will fail at the demonstrated limit and some will be successful in much greater xw. What do you want them to do? If they say the aircraft is safe to land with a 25 knot cross wind component and the pilot gives it a go and rolls the aircraft is it the manufacturers fault? Just as with the chute some will enjoy a successful outcome, and some will not - the only difference is the success of the chute is in the hands of the Gods the success of the landing is in the pilots hands, albeit not to the same extent with an off airport landing.
You want certainty, when there cant be certainty, any more than there cant be certainty every time we get into the cockpit of a SEP that the engine will not quit on us or the driver of the coach wont have a heart attack on the motorway.