No, what I'm really saying is that even if everything you accuse of me of your in post were true, none of it has the slightest bit of relevance to the topic at hand. That's what 'irrelevant' means.
My argument is for the large number of people who now have to endure this expensive, arduous and ultimately pointless box ticking exercise. Your argument appears to be that because a few of us could have avoided the difficulties of this process, therefore the process itself is vindicated. Its a non sequitur.
Now do you actually have a point that is any way relevant to that argument? Or do you just want to continue with your ad hominem?