I still say in your framing, you are essentially saying that “DAS users have unlimited LL’s”, or that “DAS users basically have front of the line access”. And I am saying this is not the case
I've said nothing of the sort. You're confusing my point about RATIOS with how many times a single person can do something.
A person in the high priority queue is not equivalent to someone in the standby queue because they are not given equal access to the same shared ride capacity. If 10 LL queue users are allowed on for every 1 standby user... every LL queue user looks like 10 standby users from the perspective of a standby user.
This has absolutely nothing to do with how frequently a person is allowed to use a LL queue. This is purely basic math about two groups sharing the same limited ride capacity.
Comments like "unlimited LL" or "front of the line access" have zero relation to what was just described above. I have no idea where you are getting these concepts from - not from me.
Now to your comment "unlimited LL" - you can say DAS has something that could be described as that because like a LL user, they are given access to the LL queue, but unlike a LL purchaser, they are not limited to how many times they can use that privilege. It's 'unlimited' in the sense of how many times it can be used. It's not 'unlimited' in the sense of constraints.. there are still constraints in terms of when they are allowed to enter the LL queue.
This is why I keep referring to the LL queue as the "high priority queue". From a wait and impact discussion... HOW you are entitled to be in that queue doesn't matter when talking about the impact of you in the queue and how it relates to someone in the standby queue. G+, LL, DAS... they are all equals once in the queue. So there is no point in describing them separately. What matters is there are two queues, and one is given high priority and greater ratio of access than the other.. hence a "high priority queue" and a "low priority queue"
Then you can describe LL, G+, and DAS as simply different systems to get entitlement to use high priority queue. Some are more restrictive than others.
Of course that is not the case.
And why it's pointless to spend any time on. What you describe is not only not how it's modeled, but not how its implemented. In your hypothetical, to put a person on a ride at a precise time would require delaying not only standby, but the LL too. It's like having a third merge point right at the ride itself. This isn't how it's done. Instead, DAS users merge with other LL and G+ users at the ride entrance.. and why DAS users impact not just standby, but all the other ride users too.