The sunk cost fallacy isn't a theory from Wikipedia it's a real term economists use to describe economic decision making based on what is already invested. I used Wikipedia as a resource so I didn't misuse the term. That doesn't change the argument.

No one has addressed the issue. Basing your decision making on the next contract on the fact that you lost money in past contracts is a poor way to do it. Disagree with that? Argue your case. When you (and others) attack me instead of my argument I can only conclude that you don't have a lucid argument. I'm willing to listen to your argument. If you have a better way of doing things I'd like to hear it.

How does stating the objective as restoration give us leverage or help in any meaningful way? Without an explanation one can only conclude that those preaching "restoration" view the act of or representatives saying "restoration" somehow improves our bargaining position on it's own. I don't see benefit. If restoration isn't the strategy, what's the strategy?