script – Is there an financial incentive to make use of p2wsh over p2tr?

As I perceive, p2pkh and p2sh are nothing higher than p2wpkh and p2wsh, apart from compatibilty.

After taproot, p2wpkh can be nothing higher than p2tr, apart from compatibilty(no financial incentive based on this).

Nevertheless, with regards to comparability between p2tr script spend and p2wsh, there can be an “financial incentive” to make use of p2wsh over p2tr.

If beneath following assumptions,

1. Tapscript solely comprises “single” script(faucet leaf is single).
2. Script itself can’t be divided into a number of leaves(i.e. OP_IF A OP_ELSE B will be divided into 2 leaves).
3. Script requires lower than 5 signatures, as schnorr signature is extra compact(about 6~8 bytes) in comparison with ecdsa DER format in dimension.
4. No motivation to spend in p2tr key path.

The entire witness gadgets to offer can be similar for p2wsh and p2tr if locking script to spend is similar,
besides that p2tr should present faucet management block of 33 bytes, even when it is just for single script spend.

Nevertheless, I discovered the reply concerning comparability of p2wsh and p2tr right here, which states,

So far as I can inform, P2TR is best than P2WSH in nearly each method. I can’t consider a case wherein it will be a big benefit to make use of P2WSH over P2TR, besides that P2WSH is already established.

Am I lacking one thing? or is there different vital profit which may offset this?