No apologies needed. And I get what you're saying. But I was focussing on the "transformative" adjective. More thrust is always "better", but will it always "transform" an airplane? Often yes. But always?
For example, the higher thrust F414 in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet resulted in a Super Hornet with only marginally better aero performance than the Classic Hornet, and even that is arguable. What made the Super Hornet Super was the increased fuel capacity and all the new systems that the Super Hornet could accept relative to the classic Hornet. In my view, the bigger engine was needed to maintain aero performance levels, not transform them.
In my opinion, USN would have been better off going with the Super Tomcat rather than the Super Hornet. The Super Tomcat had better performance, better range, and better endurance than the Super Hornet, and could accept essentially all the systems the Super Hornet ended up with, and would have cost much less to develop. But it appears that politics won out on that one.