I believe there is no compelling reason to remove the 'Reactive' softfork deployment method on the pretense of building consensus. Quite the opposite, the existence of the 'Reactive' option acts as an additional lever, actually leading to greater consensus.

The question isn't how we ship it, it's when the problem becomes undeniable enough that the entire network wants to ship it. That's the trigger.

Right now we need a reactive measure, not a protracted one! This softfork was initiated precisely for the emergency CSAM use case. I think there is no need to compromise on an emergency softfork.

Aside from that, I think the presence of the reactive softfork option will push consensus more towards a preactive softfork, which is good.

The long-term, more cautious action can be discussed later; that is a time-consuming topic.

I think "Reactive" is necessary.

What you said was complete nonsense; it makes no sense whatsoever.