Cosmo: I think we are in agreement that correct rotation rate is required. Where we disagree is the method by which this is monitored versus tail scrape protection. Your posting history suggests that you have advocated your method for some time. Equally other posters have continued to disagree with you - few seem to endorse you.
Airbus say, depending on where you look, "rotate at ABOUT 3 degrees/sec. " or
"rotate at between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees/sec". Now, on the twins I have flown (B737 , A320 & A330) the unstick occurs quite dynamically. Not so the quads. (B707, B747-2/300 & A340-300/600) The typical twin thrust/weight ratio of 1/3 is more like 1/4 on the quad. This makes the possibility of a tailscrape on the quad much more of a risk. In my own airline we had a tailscrape with a new captain on the A340 where 14 NU was achieved prior to unstick - however he escaped censure because the FDR showed that his rotation rate was " within the normal accepted parameters" !! Quote from Airbus. So yes, rotation rate is not an absolutely precise science. So, why not use all the available information to safeguard the rotation phase?
You seem to have a reluctance to acknowledge that others' experiences may not match your own. If your preferred method suited all types and all operations I am sure it would have been "industry standard" by now.