Question

Have a good week and warm greetings.
Regarding Movements Among the Stationary:
A. Around page 152, on the issue of the reason for the verse, forgive me, but the claim that it is preferable to go with the probability regarding the reason rather than stick to the text, because in any case someone will lose out—that is a puzzling claim. Sticking to the text is the simpler approach, almost on the level of passive omission, no?
B. From page 180 onward, you wrote wonderful things about the foundations of the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud, and I do not know whether there is a difference between the two Talmuds regarding these principles), and there is a Rashi somewhere who wrote this way. This is what Rashi wrote: "It is the Talmud that depends on reasoning, for they would give the words of the Mishnah a rationale, and they would gather together and engage in this, and it is similar to the Gemara that the Amoraim arranged." And that strongly reinforces your words.
Still on that same topic, I do not know whether you are familiar with Rabbi Yerushalmsky's article printed at the end of the collection of articles for Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky (from which later on you cited the pamphlet on monetary law, where I choose part of his approach over what you wrote there, as follows). If not, look there; you will find much satisfaction there [especially support for your conjecture in note 29 on page 232]. (Over time I have also seen other writers who visibly support this understanding—Rashba on Eruvin 6b, Pachad Yitzchak, Hanukkah, article 1, and more.)
C. The responsum of the Ben Ish Chai that you brought on page 36 is amazing in how well it matches the responsum (the better-known one) that you brought later. However, it seems that his words need explanation in order to be plausible, since on the straightforward points Kaved rejected him (see Har Tzvi, Orach Chayim 35, and Yabia Omer vol. 10, Orach Chayim sec. 21:1; elsewhere I have written at length about this. In a similar vein, Abraham Ohayon wrote at length in Mekabtziel 4).
D. The categorical division of the Tur—I do not have it in front of me now, but to the best of my understanding it predates the Tur, and medieval authorities (Rishonim) already divided between monetary law (perhaps not exactly as he did), personal-status law, prohibitions, and perhaps more.
E. Theft under the rule of "be killed rather than transgress"—there is also the passage in the topic of documents according to Rabbi Meir, and some medieval authorities (Rishonim) there (if I remember correctly, Ritva and others) wrote that this is not law but preference, which is amazing and gives a different explanation for the entire essence of monetary law. On this, in my poverty, I very much disagree with you, both in chapter 24 and at the end of the book regarding legal reasoning. I considered writing, but it would be far too long.
Well, these are only some of my comments [from among those that are easy to summarize—and I have many more topics I noted for myself from your words nevertheless, in line with my study] after the great pleasure of studying a book that has so much in it. Far beyond the trilogy matter, from my perspective it is packed with important analytical ideas. It is also a wellspring to draw from further, with good references. Thank you very much, and please keep going! I bless you that you should merit goodness and strong health.
P.S. The appendix about the Haredim does not fit reality at all, and I say this despite my own Haredi bias. [I remember how much I enjoyed Strassler's book until I reached its last chapters and understood that even until then it was not especially reliable—though not so in your book, because the section on the Haredim feels as though it is merely an appended monologue to the book and nothing more…] In brief I would say that in my opinion many among the Haredim do indeed make quite a few of these arguments, and say again and again: this is simply the best default option, nothing more! [Usually they also live this way in the course of their personal lives.] I will not go on.