Please don't take this as some kind of "high-and-mighty" topic to impose my thoughts on the Community or as some kind of gospel or doctrine to follow when considering requests by Community members..... These are just my observations.... Feel free to tear them down
My memory from Chemistry in High School was that scientific methods involved starting with a theory, coming up with a method to test that theory, performing that set of steps, coming to a conclusion and continuing that process, refining the theory as a result of the investigation.
My later academic and ultimately professional career has cemented the engineering concepts of taking what have become accepted and trusted approaches to a problem and putting the solutions through rigorous real-world testing by applying the approaches to real-world situations. Even these early applications of a solution need to have some level of scientific rigour applied, ensuring they achieve the same outcome expected. From an engineering perspective we are most interested in whether the approach can be applied consistently when the same problem is identified.
I'll acknowledge that engineering in the software / IT space is a relatively recent application of engineering principles compared to industries like construction or aviation, where the outcomes can have much more dire consequences when applied incorrectly or the assumptions are incorrect.
But, for me, when considering conversations here on the Community, it is important to understand that Hubitat need to straddle the scientific and engineering divide, looking to push the boundaries through scientific endeavour, but maintain the reliable outcomes that come from an engineered solution.
In the end not all options work in all situations, and that provides a grey area where we can be left wondering why can't we have what we want.... This consideration between a great theory and a proven engineering solution can offer some insight into why the development team may opt to say no....