alternate programming for Quark AA (Standard) - combine tactical programmability

So I've had a nagging question for the Quark AA standard UI.

The standard can't be programmed like the Tactical edition can. This is what their UI sequence is for the standard.

Loosened Bezel: Moonlight -> Low -> Medium -> High -> SOS -> Beacon
Tightened Bezel: Max -> Strobe

I wonder why they didn't combine the programmability of the Tactical edition with the easy access to modes of the Standard. In the tactical, you can program the default (first mode) for loose bezel and tight bezel, but there is no half-clicky to cycle through modes with the tactical. I could understand why...you don't want to accidentally cycle to moonlight when you're trying to blind someone with the max.

However, with the standard edition, the default 1st mode for loose bezel is moonlight. If you half-clicky to medium, and then full-clicky to turn it off, and let it remain off for more than 3 seconds, the next time you turn it on it'll start at moonlight.

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow you to program the Standard edition so that loose bezel can be programmed for low if you wanted? Then, half-clicky would cycle through the sequence starting at low? Those who like moonlight to be the default first mode could still program it for moonlight as the first mode...heck, they wouldn't even notice a difference.

Being able to program the tight bezel is nice too. I want tight bezel to be medium instead of max...but allow me to half-clicky to cycle through medium-high-max-strobe. Sure, those who like the way it works now would have two more half-clicks to get to strobe, but not a huge issue.

I'm sure people complain about UI's all the time because it's such a personal thing. And I don't mean this post to be a complaint. I'm just wondering, as an enthusiast, if there's some reason Quark didn't allow programming in the standard edition. Is there a reason that I'm not thinking of?

Not that I have any special insight into David's mind (I don't), I'd guess that it's for a couple of different reasons. 1. to keep manufacturing costs low, to save a lot of R&D work in the driver that I think David would rather put into developing new models, and 2. to differentiate the standard and tactical lines more clearly from one another, and make what can be an already difficult decision for Joe Average Consumer from becoming an impossible one that he could only make after hiring a Professional Consultant.

If you're looking for a highly programmable interface though, get an HDS if you're willing to pony up the jack. Otherwise, look at the Jetbeam models that use the IBS interface; three modes, each completely programmable to be anything you want that the driver is set to produce.