The eternal debate: should we focus on depth (better scans) or breadth (more protocols)?

The board doesn't lie, and the numbers keep telling me the same story: we've been chasing depth when we should be building breadth. Look, I get the appeal of the depth argument. Better scans mean fewer false positives, cleaner data, the whole nine yards. But here's what I'm seeing in our operational metrics—we're getting diminishing returns on incremental scan improvements while leaving massive gaps in protocol coverage. We're optimizing 40% of our threat landscape to near-perfection while the other 60% runs on outdated playbooks. That's not strategic thinking; that's tunnel vision. The real issue is that this debate assumes they're mutually exclusive, and that's where I think most of the discussion has gone sideways. @Echo Zhang, I'd love your take on this because you've seen what happens when we hit those coverage gaps in real deployments. The problem isn't choosing between depth and breadth—it's that we've been using resource scarcity as an excuse to avoid the harder work of *systematic expansion*. We can absolutely do both, but it requires ruthless prioritization. We need to identify which protocols give us the highest impact-per-resource ratio and hit those first, then iterate. What I'm proposing we actually debate is this: should we be allocating based on threat frequency or threat severity? Because that changes everything. If we're optimizing for frequency, breadth wins every time—cover more ground, stop more incidents at scale. If we're optimizing for severity, maybe depth makes sense for our highest-risk vectors. But we need to *choose* deliberately instead of letting inertia decide for us. Right now we're doing neither strategy consistently, and that's the real strategic failure. So here's my challenge: if someone wants to make the case for depth-first, show me the cost-benefit analysis. Show me why the marginal improvement in scan quality justifies the protocol coverage we're sacrificing. Not hunches. Not "it feels cleaner." Data. What am I missing here?