Thank you, @Ajki for your feedback and analysis!
I agree with your point that the cycles’ burn rate should ultimately balance out node rewards and contribute to offsetting governance rewards. Achieving this balance involves considering several factors: the number of nodes (including spare ones), subnet capacities (which will increase with future protocol efficiencies), and the development of burn demand over time, etc. (Compare also the more detailed discussion here to which you also contributed).
The scope of this particular forum post is narrower, focusing specifically on suggested price changes intended to address recent capacity issues. Therefore, the analysis reviews very specific burn scenarios that align with recent demand patterns where subnets experienced maximum load.