senior moderator, you are making the false equivalency of the refinement of factory edges and their shape.

They are two very different things, the shape of the bevel and the refinement of the bevel's edge, but each matters.

The factory edge presuming honed on wheel shaped forms (as at Böker, Wacker, Thiers-Issard, do not forget to include them in your logic with Dovo) always has advantages of thinness, edge radius, and cutting angle versus any later corrections you will do with flat abrasives or with tape upon spine and flat abrasives (which even further harms edge thickness, cutting angle, and edge radius). It just comes as a less refined but thinner edged object which you "fix" by making highly refined and thicker edged object.

Factory labor time is costly and they can't spend the time per unit as in peak Victorian Era production (when one Solingen factory had over 200 grinders and another in Sheffield over 600, vs today the largest factory - Dovo - has only 10). Yes, you obviously improve the refinement in what you do, but only at the expense of the other 3 metric, and all of this now occurs at a position closer to spine.

The razor is never more capable of flexibility than at its longest width from factory, the goal should be to further refine *without* increasing edge thickness, radius, and cutting angle, and this is entirely possible simply by reshaping your abrasive field. Is this such an outlandish concept, that a wheel might influence uniquely versus a flat field? Try a few diameters on an experimental razor with whatever abrasives you prefer and see for yourself.

This predates the existence of Dovo, in print (an 1834 Leipzig text for grinding is highly detailed of which diameters and abrasives to use when in process), by not less than seventy years. By your equivalency the 1834 professor put in motion the bankruptcy proceedings 185 years to follow by instituting his foolish honing methods. That is silly.