Well, this may be an overgeneralization. I think we both share an interest in what matters.

My job is writing math models of human disease. What matters is whether a proposed new drug or target will affect disease outcome enough to be useful (is it materially related to the disease, does it matter, and does it matter enough). There are a lot of things that interact in the body, and while the overall clinical outcome is what really matters, you have to have the details right. In fact, I do the models because I want the "forest" (disease outcome). But the "trees" matter in this case.

But we may be talking past each other and not answering the OPs question. He was asking whether the old 36 spoke wheel paradigm offered much of an advantage over a 32 spoke. Specifically, "Can a wheel built with a good quality triangular section rim and 32 spokes have the same strength and longevity as a wheel built with a good quality box section rim and 36 spokes?".

I'm thinking "yes", because the spoke material is at least as good as it use to be (we agree, I think) and may be significantly better (we can arm wrestle over that one), and the engineering design of the best newer rims is very strong and stiff. Ii also base the "yes" on the fact that I, a 240 guy, can ride a stiff carbon frame on an 18/24 spoke arrangement from 2014, and my 1979 wheels are 36/36, and both are 2.0mm (the modern wheels are aero - DT aero comp I believe).