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, aside from compatibilty.

After taproot, p2wpkh can be nothing higher than p2tr, aside from compatibilty(no financial incentive in line with this).

Nonetheless, in the case of comparability between p2tr script spend and p2wsh, there can be an “financial incentive” to make use of p2wsh over p2tr.

If underneath 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 could 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 measurement.
4. No motivation to spend in p2tr key path.

All the witness objects to offer can be identical for p2wsh and p2tr if locking script to spend is identical,
besides that p2tr should present faucet management block of 33 bytes, even when it is just for single script spend.

Nonetheless, 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 virtually each approach. I can not consider a case by which it will be a major benefit to make use of P2WSH over P2TR, besides that P2WSH is already established.

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