Gee Mr Wizz
I definately mean not disrespect, quite the opposite infact, I have a lot of respect for you, like wise for Paggi really, although we have to be aware that it is difficult for him to be objective since his job is to promote a particular technical solution.
A serious understanding of these concepts is vital.
The point about the 200% against the 33% is we do accept that there is a number. Now we have to look at whether that number is important or unimportant.
I would like to suggest that it is more important than is obvious.
We could simply take the proportion of the total losses that are caused by engines and divide by the total losses.
If this number were, say then 50% then your 33% deal would be worth it.
If that number is 5% then it is not worth it. We have then made it more dangerous in the misguided attempt to make it safer.
It is an example of too much emphasis on egines, at the expense of weight/payload that would be available to spend on higher yielding safety features. (like fuel maybe)