I understand why O(1) is useful for your application. It is not, however, part of RPIP-31 at all. RPIP-31 talks about who can initiate RPL claims, but it does not talk about aggregating them or not in any way. (Eg, if a withdrawal address was used for 5 nodes and needed to make one claim for each, that strategy could fulfill the spec). This is also true for O(1) smoothing pool claims – ETH is mentioned exactly once in RPIP-31 to say that claiming RPL will also distribute smoothing pool ETH for that NO. Again - no mention one way or the other about aggregation. I think it’s important to clarify that the thing you’re describing as critical to Nodeset is not something that the pDAO has at any time voted in. Again, I totally get why it’s useful to your application, but from a governance perspective this is not something that has been committed to in any way.
Fwiw, I think my preference remains v10 simply as being most pragmatic, though item #1 in Houston Specification Discrepancies does give me some pause.