Yes. That feels like the right stance — and it changes the nature of the style sheet.It means the style sheet is not a list of prohibitions. It is a record of editorial judgement.Not:Always use X. Never use Y.But:When this kind of problem arises, here is how I understand the reader’s need, the sentence’s work, and the available marks.That is a much richer — and much larger — task. But it is also exactly the right task for an essayist.I’d frame your stance like this:Editorial stanceI take Hart and Butcher not as authorities for the imposition of arbitrary rules, but as companions in judgement. Their value is to encourage care: to think critically, practically, and supportively about the reader’s relationship with my words. The aim of style is not correctness for its own sake, but the best presentation of thought to a reader. Where a question of punctuation, typography, spelling, structure, citation, or layout arises, the governing question is: what will help the reader enter, follow, trust, and remain with the essay?That gives us the governing principle.Then each style-sheet entry can follow a common pattern:Style-sheet entry pattern1.FunctionWhat is this element trying to do?2.Reader relationWhat does the reader need at this moment?3.Available formsWhat marks, constructions, or layout choices are available?4.Preferred tendencyWhat does your house style usually prefer?5.Exceptions / judgementWhen should that tendency be overridden?6.ExamplesOne or two sentences showing the difference.So for the current issue, the heading is not “En dash”. It is probably:Parenthetic movementAnd within it we would distinguish:•subordination, when the relation between ideas should be explicit;•commas, when the aside is light and integrated;•round brackets, when the material is cooler or off-stage;•spaced en dashes, when the essayist’s thinking voice visibly turns aside;•recasting, when the sentence has become overburdened.The emerging rule might be:Prefer relation before interruption.If the secondary material has a clear logical relation to the main clause — cause, concession, condition, time, purpose, definition — express that relation through syntax, often by subordination. Use parenthesis where the secondary material performs a genuine aside, qualification, hesitation, self-correction, or tonal adjustment.That already sounds like your style sheet: not a rule about punctuation, but a rule about thought becoming readable.