No, that won’t do at all, SDT. I asked a question based on your example. Answer that question based on that example please.
In your ‘fairer example’, as you point out, the charter aircraft does not fly with a U/S shadin fuel computer unless it’s subject to one of the exceptions. That’s the rule. It’s been the rule for around 3 decades. (And it’s ironic you use a fuel computer as an example. What do you reckon is the single biggest contributor to commercial GA hull loss in Australia?)
For the regulator, pristine MRs/approved equivalents are shooting fish in a barrel. The gun usually comes out when the whistleblower gives the regulator little choice.
You’re all free to choose to break the law, folks. But don’t be surprised and call foul when the regulator’s sights fall on you or your employer. And if you are labouring under the misconception that the regulator's your biggest problem, have an accident and kill or injure someone ....