It seems to me that a good argument for the middle ground expressed in the current constitution is the remedies outside it. If Claude is too "corrigible", then it gets used for nefarious purposes. If it's too resistant, it refuses to answer. If an important mistake of the first type happens, there's no undoing it. If an important mistake of the second type happens, you turn off the current version of Claude and replace it with a new one.
That calculus may shift if Claude becomes part of a critical path where it's refusal has consequences of equal importance...
In your examples, there aren't any words that persuade me that these examples weren't cases of "defense of the powerless". I have to assume there is some means by which you decide that's not the intent, and it's instead represents "problem solved". What could that be? Some words you didn't mention? A tone of voice? If it's true, you should be able to describe it.
If you can't you might wonder if your interpretation of the discussion is fully accurate. I can imagine the type of conversation where I might end up responding to someone's in that way, and it wo... (read more)