the generational inertia of the silverbacks fighting you and poo-pooing every attempt to further the art of flying.
Yeah... for the purpose of this discussion, I am a silverback. A part of the silver was the three months I spent in hospital thinking about how the most recent training flight (completely by the book) did not work out well. All that thinking time made me more conservative, not more adventurous. The flight manual procedures are approved based upon lots of testing, and an assessment of margins of safety from average pilot skill. Yes, a very skilled pilot can do better, but there is no measuring stick for that - very skilled pilots are on their own. I've flown with some PPL's who thought they were "very skilled" - they were not. So, the measuring stick for even that is wiggly.
The most scary flight testing I have been required to do was land straight ahead from a [planned] EFATO from 50 feet, in a modified Grand Caravan, at slower than Vy ('cause that was what the test was for). It was terrifying to keep thinking I was about to wreck this plane. I stopped doing the testing, declaring the risk of the testing exceeded the value of a favourable outcome. TC and I reached a compromise that got everyone what they needed. In a Grand Caravan, I was "average skill" [on type], so the testing was fair. Yes, Caravan super pilot could have done better. But, Caravan super pilot was not the next guy who'd be flying it, after I finished the flight testing.
Sure, further the art of flying! Build up your skills, do the testing, and validate the data to an acceptable standard. If you want, get it approved too! I would be delighted if every pilot honed their skills to that point. My experience is that the "average" pilot is not honing their skills to that extent, and is thus, much safer inside the bounds of what has been tested and approved for "average pilot skill".