Tom, you're getting increasingly strident on here and all you're doing is proving the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You keep banging on about one graph in the AFM as if that were the only factor, when I and others have pointed out to you that several other things, not least EU-OPS, are the driving factors.
To give a couple of similar examples:
1. According to the AFM I can join the visual circuit at Oxford at 300 knots; you know perfectly well, though, that the Rules of the Air limit us to 250 below 10k and that for practical reasons of preparing for the final approach and fitting in with other traffic we want to be back nearer 150knots and configured appropriately. By your logic I should go for the higher speed clean and damn the rules and other airspace users.
2. Where in the AFM does it say that I can't land in 100m RVR? By your logic because it doesn't say it in the AFM I can go ahead and do that if I want.
The reason why EU-OPS and every equivalent regulation round the world says you must follow your Part B procedures is precisely to stop people who've read one bit of information in isolation coming up with their own hare-brained procedures. And once again, you must follow your Part B; it's not a case of " maybe if I feel like agreeeing with it I'll do it". If you think your Part B isn't correct, then raise a fuss with your company until they either explain why it's written the way it is or change it if in fact your point is correct.
And finally, again this has been written before but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your little theory, the heights mentioned in some AFM's and many SOP's are not retraction heights; they are acceleration heights, except that normally on two engines in high performance bizjets you are already above the minimum retraction speed when you get there. Just because many people refer to them incorrectly due to poor training does not invalidate the procedure.