I personally see nothing naive in the parent post. It brings arguments based on knowledge how organization works and appeals to a game theory (stakes do not match). I'm not saying the reasoning is necessarily valid, but it is not naive.
The only part of the parent comment I do not approve from a methodology standpoint is an appeal to "exception that proves the rule". Exceptions do not prove rules, they disprove them.
I almost never see this phrase used correctly however.
"Street parking is always allowed"
"Not always! Three years ago there was a marathon that went through this street and you weren't allowed to park here that morning."
This exception is so specific and obscure that it "proves" (in a casual conversational sense) that "you can always park here" is a good rule. Not all exceptions prove the rule: if the exception is "except on weekends and holidays and overnight", that's so significant and obvious that it actually disproves the rule.
This is, as I recall, literally the origin of the term?
It was commonly mis-used to mean “eh that just a minor exception that you should ignore.” But it’s been mis-used so much that now it has both meaning.
Thou shalt not kill, except all the times thou shalt.
My memory is this came from Cicero and was about a place excluding women by rule, as they pointed to the exception of a woman that was allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule seems to support both interpretations, and at least shows I got the speaker right. Not seeing that my specifics are good, though. I would not be shocked to know that I am wrong there.