If I follow your logic on the first example, you are saying just because the parachute was required as an alternative to demonstrating spin recovery doesn’t mean it couldn’t (although they have not demonstrated it). That logic implies that no go decisions should only be made if you are certain you couldn’t make it. From my perspective, if they haven’t demonstrated the ability to recover from a spin then it is foolish to take it on faith that they can.
The second discussion (CAPS over water) is based on the training I received from Cirrus which said not to do it. You may disagree with that but the Cirrus instructor said it. Once again it is a question of taking the word of the manufacturer of deciding you know best. I admit I don’t. If my Cirrus instruction tells me the plane will not survive the G forces of a parachute landing on water I am not knowledgeable enough to disagree with him. I still feel (as stated in your quote) that if my Cirrus instructor is right and corporate Cirrus does not clarify the issue they are introducing additional danger, especially considering it was the conclusion of people on this site that the parachute should be used over water.
I read you third example, but I could not figure out what you were saying. I do remember the thread. The original poster was saying that the accident was proof that Cirrus pilots are not the only ones who exercise bad judgment. He also provided incorrect METAR data to support his point that the pilot should not have attempted a landing. When eventually the correct data was provided it became evident that the landing was not an automatic miss. That is another peeve I have with this site. There is a tendency to immediately blame the pilot rather than entertain the possibility that it might be the plane.