i'm not sure why your family or career is relevant to this discussion. you seem angry. my best guess is that someone close to you used one of these courses to qualify and you are defending his or her "honor" by proxy. you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine
I'm not hanging my hat on anything, I am directly refuting your assertion that an "expert lacking the experience" would hold a view similar to my own by providing one of many examples of very talented and experienced runners who also appear to share the view that certain courses should be disallowed for Boston Qualification
running a marathon is never easy for most people, so "hang glide down a mountain" is obviously a joking exaggeration. but the "facts and known data" that you apparently love so much do not lie. take a look at the mean, median, and normal distribution of times for extreme downhill Boston qualifiers versus even a pancake flat time trial course and you will see that gravity confers a significant advantage. i don't think these courses would be so popular and loudly advertising themselves as last chance / high % BQ completion rate unless that were the case. it's just physics
anyway, my point is that instead of introducing an absurd edge case lottery system, perhaps we could cut down on the number of BQ applicants by making that standard more uniformly legitimate and stringent in the first place. one of the ways to do that and make sure people are -- literally -- on a level playing field... is to set a maximum allowable elevation change. there are other options as well. i apologize if this comes off as a personal attack to you. it's not
just my 2c