Understood. But then you kinda have to accept there are deficiencies that come with a solution that’s not intended to be held up to a gold standard.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but how does the comparison to the mechanical push-button lock apply? It sounds like it meets the requirements your insurance company has deemed necessary for the purpose of insuring you against the risk of a child accidentally drowning in the pool.
Most homeowner’s insurance companies would not offer a discounted premium if a lock like this is installed. If there were a UL-certified, centrally monitored intrusion and fire alarm system, they probably would offer a discount on the premium.
But that’s because in that case, the homeowner has taken what the insurance company agrees are adequate steps to mitigate another risk they presumably insure against, stolen property and a house gutted by fire. If the system isn’t certified to meet the standards of an independent safety testing lab, then it’s not good enough (for the insurance company, that is).