I think there are two areas - qualitative improvements, and regulatory hurdles - that are interesting to think about in the context of this (excellent!) summary. These are some fairly loose thoughts without any real conclusions.
First are qualitative improvements. These may be difficult to define - is the smartphone a truly qualitative improvement? Some cyborg theory says yes (provides audiovisual transfer, eases access to vast repositories of information, etc), but smartphones are certainly far less useful than the internet.
In the near future, I'm very optimistic about recent protein folding simulation advances (Google's DeepMind) significantly speeding up drug research. A good historical case might be the development of well defined physical measurements (metric system, but better imperial definitions too) eventually allowing higher precision machining, which allowed better measuring tools, and then a virtuous cycle of better measurement and higher precision tools until we reached full interchangeable parts (essentially required for a modern supply chain and mass-production).
This is indicative of a general trend. A long period of ever-more difficult quantitative improvements eventually allowing a serious qualitative leap.
This is particularly applicable to research - some sort of proof of concept, followed by further development into something useful, qualification of that useful application, actual use of the technology, and then further development of the technology over time. As other competing technologies are more capable, it takes longer for a technology to become competitive. But the point where a company can make money on a technology only really happens in those last two stages. So the more developed and refined competitor technologies are, the longer a technology takes to go out of the academic lab and into the mainstream.
Second, the effects of restrictions, especially in physical sciences/engineering. These essentially serve as algae on the bottom of the ship of progress, slowing things down. There are two major places for this - government regulations, and industry standards. The latter doesn't get enough attention.
NACE MR0175, for example (a standard dealing with materials for in oil environments with corrosive H2S present), ended up having a serious chilling effect on new alloy research in the US from 1975 until it was finally significantly revised. A poorly thought out qualifications rule meant that new materials could be forced to undergo a much longer, more expensive process essentially at the will of any committee member. Committee members included representatives from major materials manufacturers, none of whom were excited at the idea of their competitors having an easy time. As a result, academic research into new alloy systems for this application reduced significantly.
I remember a few years ago reading an article about a bridge near Harvard taking an outrageous amount of time to renovate. The article authors pointed out that the Romans managed to build longer bridges faster. The problems weren't technological, but administrative/political.
There's currently a serious issue with standards proliferation. Not only are standards getting a lot longer, there are a lot more of them. And they're poorly unified - even if you meet US, European, Chinese, etc standards, simply producing the paperwork and statements can be a serious administrative burden (not to mention the possible extra costs getting similar tests done by different companies due to different accreditation requirements). For poorly funded individuals, the thousands of dollars simply to acquire the necessary standards may be a serious burden. Further, standards often have the force of law. And some of those laws are poorly written, calling out outdated standards (or conversely not taking into account the possible legacy issues when a new standard is issued).
There's also complex interactions between the necessary aspects of standards, and the possible advantages they give. If a company is sending senior engineers to participate in standards activities, there is an incentive to create standards which are advantageous for that company (or at least more difficult for other companies to adhere to). This is quite apparent in some regional/international standards differences that provide local companies competitive advantages.
But ultimately, these impediments seriously increase the cost and decrease the speed of new developments. And these impediments are growing. I found a post from 1999 talking about how bad they were, and that's a tiny fraction of how they are now. So I wonder how much slow-down comes from this sort of thing?
I would recommend a revision (close to a re-write) of the second vow for four reasons:
First, negotiations theory has progressed past game theory solutions to a more psychologically based methodology. This approach has been demonstrated to be more effective in two well tested and well studied environments: FBI hostage negotiations (I'd recommend starting with Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss as a light, entertaining but still useful introductory work), and intelligence community asset recruitment. You can look up the transition from the relatively explanatory MICE - money, ideology, compromise, ego - to RASCLS - reciprocity, authority, scarcity, consistency, liking, social proof. Note that in RASCLS all approaches essentially link to ego, though they may use the other MICE factors to get there.
Essentially, a lot of the time a dispute isn't about the outcome, but about the process and establishing understanding for respective points of view. I understand that a less mathematically rigorous approach may at first seem less rational and less desirable. But ultimately from a utilitarian viewpoint, it's most rational to choose the most effective method, even if that method is less "rational" than an alternate method.
Second, the second vow focuses too much on the target (a KS solution bargain to the disagreement) and too little on the process. Agreeing on how you will dispute is more important for maintaining concord than how you determine the outcome. Using a more specific procedure for arguments (especially serious ones) is useful, as it makes both parties know that they will have a fair opportunity to express themselves.
I would recommend sourcing from debate standards at least for the most serious arguments, possibly recorded so you can both review afterwards (British parliamentary debate rules are quite good, and there are various shortened forms). But even within the framework of searching for a KS solution, it's important to have a pre-established method of presenting possible solutions, establishing scores for how desirable those solutions are for each party, etc., without further escalating the disagreement. Essentially some analogue to how facts and evidence can be established in a legal dispute.
Periodic (perhaps weekly) check ins to air grievances and make sure everyone is on the same page can also be useful.
Third, KS systems (like other game theory approaches) are difficult to quantify. It's hard to assign a dollar value to taking out the trash versus doing the dishes. Time is a possible approach, but difficult to reconcile with how much you like/dislike an activity. Accompanying your partner for 30 minutes of listening to screaming metal on full blast may not be equivalent to 30 minutes of manual labor (in either direction). Adding in a scale of love <-> hate (say, 0-10) that then multiplies by that time is similarly a poor approach because people may prefer a short sharp pain to a longer but milder pain, but absolutely avoid a very short agonizing pain. Like most approaches that require a useful quantitative score, KS breaks down in the messy (and often inconsistent!) application of preferences.
Fourth, a KS/game-theory negotiations approach to disputes promotes an accounting approach to your relationship. "You should do X because I did Y..." and so on. This will provide a constant state of two parties keeping their own track of relative performance, which even without taking into account the likely bias towards their own viewpoints is likely to have fair divergence due to differences in accounting for various actions. Though small, there will be countless and never ending disagreements and dissatisfaction due to this approach, providing for a grit which will slowly (or not so slowly) erode your relationship.
The exact wording is something you may want to work out with your partner. It wouldn't be unreasonable to refer to some agreement between you on methods of dispute resolution which can be changed at a later date with both parties' agreement. But I think you'd find this sort of approach more effective and more rewarding.