I do agree that a negative that "gives you what you want" is the best. This was part and parcel of Ansel Adams' teachings, the zone system was designed to make printing easier and improve quality.
An important part of that system is pegging the shadow point to a very specific point on the film curve, essentially as low as possible where you can still get the detail needed.
Adams wasn't looking for a buffer, he had fully tested and found his own EI's. He knew exactly how to meter for and get what he wanted. This minimum exposure method is also taught, with caveats, by Dunn & Wakefield in "Exposure Manual".
I do also agree that there is no one best exposure method or placement regime that suits everybody. Each of us need to figure out what works best for ourselves.
My aversion to simply adding extra exposure as a buffer is purely practical.
My metering practices are well practiced, when I miss its normally a doozy, like thinking I'm shooting Delta 400 at 3200 and having fP4 in the camera, 1-2 stops of buffer isn't going to fix the shadow detail there.
I also don't think most people will give up speed for extra shadow detail. Personally I like photographing people, boats, and other non-fixed stuff in low light, or in motion, and on MF and LF film. My subject matter and smaller relative apertures that come with the larger formats pose a time problem for me and many others. Even where I can hold the camera still with a tripod my subjects are still prone to wiggle. I'm not real happy when shutter speeds get real long.
Given my situation, I won't give up any shutter speed just to have a little extra shadow detail I'm not planning to use.