taproot – Was the OP_SUCCESSx reservation in BIP-342 designed with particular opcode households in thoughts, or as a generic forward-compatibility mechanism?

In Pieter Wuille’s latest reply [Why did BIP-342 replace CHECKMULTISIG with a new opcode], BIP-342’s
deliberate minimization of semantic modifications was attributed to the
expectation that “these might all the time be launched with later softforks
that redefine OP_SUCCESSes.”

I am curious concerning the granularity of this reservation:

• Had been particular opcode candidates (e.g., CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, CAT, TXHASH)
  already on the radar when OP_SUCCESS positions had been allotted, or was
  the allocation purely summary — “reserve area for unknown future use”?
• Was there dialogue about courses of additives (introspection opcodes,
  signature variants, hash operations) that might or would not be acceptable
  candidates for OP_SUCCESS redefinition vs. requiring a deeper softfork?
• Are there design properties an opcode SHOULD need to be a clear
  OP_SUCCESS redefinition (vs. requiring extra invasive consensus modifications)?

I ask as a result of the activation-path mechanics matter for the way group
discussions about future opcodes must be framed: is the dialog
“which opcode” or additionally “which opcode reservation slot.”

In Pieter Wuille’s latest reply [Why did BIP-342 replace CHECKMULTISIG with a new opcode], BIP-342’s
deliberate minimization of semantic modifications was attributed to the
expectation that “these might all the time be launched with later softforks
that redefine OP_SUCCESSes.”

I am curious concerning the granularity of this reservation:

• Had been particular opcode candidates (e.g., CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, CAT, TXHASH)
  already on the radar when OP_SUCCESS positions had been allotted, or was
  the allocation purely summary — “reserve area for unknown future use”?
• Was there dialogue about courses of additives (introspection opcodes,
  signature variants, hash operations) that might or would not be acceptable
  candidates for OP_SUCCESS redefinition vs. requiring a deeper softfork?
• Are there design properties an opcode SHOULD need to be a clear
  OP_SUCCESS redefinition (vs. requiring extra invasive consensus modifications)?

I ask as a result of the activation-path mechanics matter for the way group
discussions about future opcodes must be framed: is the dialog
“which opcode” or additionally “which opcode reservation slot.”