The technical aspect seems viable, with no immediate reasons to dismiss the idea outright. The potential for such mechanisms to provide a useful response to emergent risks is acknowledged. This suggests an appreciation for the tactical flexibility that short-duration soft forks can offer in managing unforeseen vulnerabilities or threats within the network.

However, the conversation also highlights a significant level of reluctance within the community, especially among those who would be responsible for championing and developing these proposals. There's an evident concern about the substantial effort required not just in the initial development and deployment of such forks but potentially having to revisit and re-implement them after a few years without any clear additional benefits. This touches on a broader issue of resource allocation and prioritization within development communities, where the balance between addressing immediate concerns and planning for long-term sustainability becomes a critical point of contention.

Furthermore, it's clear there is a nuanced perspective on the process of building consensus and the challenges involved in navigating the landscape of review, criticism, and approval within the Bitcoin community. This reflects an understanding of the complexities associated with governance and decision-making in decentralized systems, where efforts to innovate or respond to risks must be weighed against the demands of collective agreement and the practicalities of implementation.