JIT fees with TXHASH: comparing options for sponsorring and stacking

In the inquiry about the stacking protocol, the question revolves around the choice of not keeping outputs contiguous within the transaction hash (TXHASH) Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP). The sender of this question suggests an alternative methodology in which output indices could be committed in a contiguous sequence, specifically listing sequences such as (-2, -1, 0), (-1, 0, +1), (0, +1, +2), (+1, +2, +3), and (+2, +3, +4). This proposed method contrasts with the current approach employed by the protocol, prompting the sender to question whether there is a significant benefit or drawback to either method that they might have overlooked.

The underlying curiosity stems from the assumption that maintaining contiguous output indices would be the more intuitive or "obvious" approach to structuring transactions within the BIP. The sender expresses uncertainty regarding the efficiency or success rate of the current non-contiguous method compared to their proposed contiguous strategy, implying a belief that both methods might yield similar outcomes. This inquiry, devoid of any conclusion, seeks clarification on whether the existing protocol's design overlooks potential improvements or if there are specific reasons behind the chosen methodology that may not be immediately apparent to those not intimately familiar with its development.