I have read somewhere that sampling at 1/3 of your usual FWHM is optimal for getting the most detail from data, so I believe your observations are spot on Allan. Drizzle x3 requires more subs/better data than x2, but if it works then why not use it
I like Troy's suggestion of directly comparing different methods visually and by measuring noise/SNR.
As for twisting Mike's arm - good luck with that!
