Interesting argument, and I'm certainly not in a position to argue.

But I don't see why you've elevated "5 days" to become some magic number that cannot be challenged.

Would four days really open the floodgates to slamming? Three days? What?

The 'minimum safe period' is at the heart of your argument, but you say nothing to justify the minimum being five.

Intuitively, it seems that two hours is fairly loopy and utterly unnecessary, but in this Star Trek age, a couple of days seems reasonable. Unless there's a reason why not?