I hope you will be applying FAA Advisory Circular 120-91 or its equivalent.
.. and a bit of fat in addition should I consider it appropriate. I make no apologies for being a conservative engineer and have not the slightest concern when it upsets the bean counters. Being conservative has seen me comfortably out of potential legal hot water following a few fatals in aircraft with my mods embodied ... the mods might not be relevant but the good legal folk have a tendency to use a scatter gun approach to litigation.
With some fiddling on the fix and legs page before departure, you can paint your EO routing on your PFD, if you fly a Boeing.
One needs to be cognizant of accuracy available and accuracy required before one trusts one's life to JB technology ... while the line might be useful for orientation routinely the ops eng folk will have figured the escape with respect to achieveable flight path accuracy and that needs to be achieved .. no point following the line into the rocky bit believing it to be God's gift to pilots. My limited understanding of religion suggests that God doesn't necessarily see any pertinent need to protect folk intent on joining the Darwin Award group.
One problem which concerns me greatly in many areas is the observation gained over the past, say, 30 years wherein the up and coming folk are developing/have developed a blind faith in gizmo technology. As a long ago aerodynamics boss of mine observed some years ago after presenting a bunch of awards at a graduation event .. "pity none of them have a clue about ROM calculations and guarding against GIGO". Blindly following the magenta line without engaging the brain is a good recipe for surprises.
if they use any engineered data at all
.. and that's been a big worry for many decades now