A large number of interceptor launches does not by itself reveal whether a defensive missile worked well. Several missiles might have been needed against a difficult ballistic target, or a long-range interceptor might have been the only weapon available against a much cheaper drone. The discussion explicitly says the public lacks the detailed engagement data needed to distinguish those explanations. Poor interception performance would imply a different remedy from an effective missile being used because a shorter-range defensive layer was missing. The cost comparison uses the example of a $4 million interceptor against a $20,000 drone that might cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to an oil refinery. The damage prevented therefore belongs in the calculation alongside the two weapons' prices.
Notable Point · 1:42:35-1:44:47
Missile expenditure needs an account of the threats and damage prevented
The same expenditure can indicate weak interception, heavy attack, or a missing short-range layer; weapon prices alone cannot settle the explanation.