sure but the difference is, its a best case scenario versus absolute perfection, it's trimming to overcome slight issues that occur versus fixing something that is a potential disaster. People seem to have difficultly with middle or mean ground. they hear , here is a solution, but it must fix all possible failure modes instead of, here are at the most common failure modes, ie the ones i listed for an O2 sensor, versus what you listed as a failure mode. It's a trim to overcome the slight issues, not a be all and end all, not having the option is worse. My O2 sensor wasn't able to correct for someone who swapped out an injector not realising that the latency for different injectors although with the same flow size type, is different and now my car runs worse etc..
with that logic next time i design an ECU, or work on a car thats got a non 0 trim. i should say,, oh you're not passing emissions because of the slight wear, change in fuel type, location or other things that an O2 sensor does compensate for and you should go and clean, and fix every tiny part that is out of spec. Sure you can make it perfect, but that is what feedback is for. i demand mechanical perfection.
The analogy is much more apt. you're just limiting yourself to "properly" as being totally accurate, it's flawed , but it works in some scenarios, not all, its a bandaid, fix your machine, we get it. but sometimes we can only go so far and having the option is nice. It's a trim , not a cure all.
Having an closed loop O2 sensor, is better than nothing.