This will be my last response to you, since you seem to be ignoring actual points and veering into irrelevant pedantry, which is not particularly helpful to anyone. But because you keep structuring your posts with links in pursuit of a veneer of credibility, like some kind of reverse-Batesian mimicry, wherein something toxic might mimic something palatable in order to lure unsuspecting consumers, I will summarize for the benefit of our readers.

You asserted that "In almost all situations where one could use CSV" there would be a better choice, and suggested a database format. Aside from weasel words like "almost" making the statement inapplicable, the assertion itself is impracticable, for the reason I discussed, viz. in most situations where one is using CSV, one did not choose the format. Nothing you have said (or, I speculate, can say) contradicts this central point.

Your blathering about the Library of Congress is completely useless, since you appear to extract from a specific datum (the Library of Congress preservationists reporting no preferential experience with the format in relation to their collection) the irrelevant misinformation "The Library of Congress has 0 CSVs in its collections," which has a remarkable combination of qualities, i.e. not only does it have no bearing on the topic of this thread, it is also a lie, or at the very least a mistake borne of an inability or unwillingness to read the text you keep linking.

So in conclusion, nothing you have contributed to this discussion is of use to any office suite user while considering the ease of opening CSV files, and even if the information you have provided were of any utility value, it's not reliable. Congratulations on a perfect record, then, of not helping. I hope for the sake of those around you that your skills at identifying relevance and pursuing accuracy increase markedly and quickly.