I think I read "only" 150 of the 263 prior posts here, so my apologies if the following arguments have already been made:

The proposed hard deck would in some cases reduce, but not remove the motivation for attempting a low save. In most cases it wouldn't make any difference to what the pilot decides to do.

In cases where there are significant patches of unlandable terrain (for example around Eprata, WA), having to consider the hard deck when deciding on the best course of action at a low altitude could significantly increase pilot's workload and stress level.

For an inexperienced pilot, flying a task with a hard deck programmed into the flight computer may offer a false sense of extra security, especially when flying over patches of unlandable terrain.

Considering only the above three safety aspects of the hard deck, I would say that its unintended consequences would most likely outweigh gains. So, even without considering a number non-safety related issues that many have expressed in this thread, from rules being already too complex all the way to Nancy Pelosi, I'd say that the hard deck idea is not something that should be implemented.

Focusing on pilot training and having knowledgeable and reasonable people (i.e., no big egos) in charge of contest management is the best way improve contest safety, like they do in at Region 8 in Ephrata (and many other sites that I haven't been to).

Branko Stojkovic
XYU