One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .
I dont think anyone is going quite that far. I gave some examples earlier and I think there was agreement even amoung the most "conservative" that they might not always pull the chute.
You talk about a proper study - but how do you think this could be conducted. The cost and risk of such a study would be enormous and couldn't be funded by Cirrus. Its not a lot different from saying there should be far more studies into the crash survivability of CATs. You can do all the simulations in the world (which is in itself vastly costly) but just as with cars you "need" to crash a lot into brick walls on bespoke rigs. Only the big manufacturers can afford to do that, and that incurs vast cost, so one can only imagine the cost of such a study for aircraft.
Proper studies are a great idea but no one is going to pay the bill - no one can afford to pay the bill.
I suggested earlier why I feel it is so difficult for Cirrus to even give "proper" guidance. Proper guidance must be based on some form of quantitative study and the study would need to stand up in court to scrutiny - catch 22, you are back to my earlier point, no one can afford to do the study.
So Cirrus were brave to incorporate a chute, and they seem to have been rewarded by pretty good evidence that landings under the chute in a range of conditions have so far proved reasonably safe. The evidence will grow as there are more deployments and at some point a more complete picture will evolve of the pros and cons. Some would argue the picture is already taking shape.
As others have said this is but a fraction of the debate on COPA; most Cirrus pilots (not all) are members and most Cirrus pilots take their flying very seriously. There is no shortage of highly qualified analysis albeit ultimately for those sufficiently interested you can only read the analysis and draw your own conclusions.
So to sum up I dont disagree with you and I doubt many would - but you wish for something you almost certainly cant have and therefore the argument becomes academic.
Yes we agree the chute warrants more study, but its not going to happen.