There is very little evidence of that, and extensive evidence to the contrary.

> This really is as simple as "the thing in the loop which has agency is the human, so the buck stops there."

Not only is that exactly the opposite of one of the few groups which did manage to get somewhat good at this (the on-board shuttle group), it's also the incorrect and inane thinking which led e.g. surgeons to resist checklists. Again, your line of thinking has only led us to half a century of failure.

Agency is irrelevant, people are good at creative elements but terrible at systematic ones, yet you're pushing more systematic work onto the one piece of the chain least suited for it, then blaming it for its failure.

> This is not even a single point of failure; it's an ecosystem failure.

Well there's at least one thing we agree on.

Citation? You will need evidence to back this claim up, and the evidence shows that C and C++ apps are far more vulnerable to these bug classes than apps written in memory safe languages.

> This really is as simple as "the thing in the loop which has agency is the human, so the buck stops there."

This is like saying "we don't need instruments in our planes' cockpits because the thing in the loop that has agency is the pilot, so the buck stops there".

Memory safe languages are tools that help programmers not write these kinds of vulnerabilities. We use tools because we as humans are imperfect.

I'd agree in cases - <vector> in C++ don't cost much. It "delete()s" upon going out of scope.