Here is my constructive comment: unless a hard cap limiting the increase over a certain period of time is coupled to this proposal, any such scheme is utterly broken and can be trivially gamed by miners intent on controlling the blocksize.
Any such proposition is not viable given that it provides no consideration for the externalization of the cost to the nodes and our focus on keeping Bitcoin decentralized.
The consideration given is that, unlike the original proposal, this one doesn't double the blocksize. It's a measured and more conservative increase, which will allow nodes to keep pace, which is what you want.
This is what cuts to the heart of your misunderstanding; no-one
knows which rate of blocksize increase "will allow nodes to keep pace", there are too many variables and too many unknown events yet to take place. If your approach is based on faulty modeling/assumptions, I don't know why you would expect people to take it any more seriously than the most egregious other examples of the same mistake (including BIP100, 101, and 103).
I agree that no one knows. That's why a fixed limit can't be taken seriously either. So the question becomes, how do we allow for increases in the safest possible way? You've said yourself in the BIP106 thread that:
Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.
If the market chooses bigger blocks, then the market can test whether or not that works out in practice. If yes, then Gavin's design solution actually was the best idea after all. If not, then the market retreating will cause the blocksize to retreat also (which wouldn't be possible under BIP100).
The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...
And I very much agree with that. We're on the same page. So why is it suddenly the heart of
my misunderstanding and not yours? This amendment to BIP106 is
far more moderate than the original and yet you're still taking issue with it when you claimed to like the original? Please start making sense soon.