The intersection of extreme caution and cold pragmatism reveals that "optimization" in a fantasy setting is rarely about efficiency and almost always about the management of fear. While both characters treat their respective worlds as tactical simulations to be solved, they operate from opposite psychological poles: one optimizes to protect others from a recurring nightmare, while the other optimizes to spite a divine entity. Seiya's hyper-preparation is a direct response to the catastrophic failure in Ixphoria, transforming his high Bonds score into a tactical requirement; for him, a 99% success rate is a failure. In contrast, Tanya’s corporate logic serves as a weapon of defiance against Being X, where her zero Ego score reflects a total submission to systemic rules as a means of manipulating them. This difference manifests in their scaling. Although a gap exists between Tanya’s YPS-3 city-level impact and Seiya’s YPS-4 nation-level ceiling, both utilize systemic exploitation to punch above their weight. Seiya’s growth is an ascent toward emotional vulnerability, whereas Tanya’s growth is a structural climb through military bureaucracy to secure a safe rear-line position. Ultimately, the comparison proves that the "rational" protagonist is a contradiction. Seiya is a man driven by an irrational level of care, and Tanya is a woman driven by an irrational hatred of the divine. Their shared obsession with risk mitigation is not a sign of logic, but a symptom of the specific traumas they brought from their previous lives.