Not disagreeing with you, but aren’t these local minimums/maximums quite dependent on eukaryotic cells, and/or protein-based life? Wouldn’t the resources required by the brain vs muscle be vastly different than what we have know?
Also, what if a non-protein based molecular machinery can be so energy efficient and powerful that species having that can skip some seemingly necessary part of development? But I’m by no means an expert on the topic, just asking. If the reasoning was about absolute limits, I would be much more accepting of them (eg. Energy required by the simplistic work done, like a given skeletal structure picking up a weight with muscles only consuming the minimal physical necessity)
Most of what I've mentioned is more physics based rather than biologically based. Even if your muscles are more efficient your skeleton is going to grow with volume, which means non-linearly. Given this, all those same things will still apply.
Also, what if a non-protein based molecular machinery can be so energy efficient and powerful that species having that can skip some seemingly necessary part of development? But I’m by no means an expert on the topic, just asking. If the reasoning was about absolute limits, I would be much more accepting of them (eg. Energy required by the simplistic work done, like a given skeletal structure picking up a weight with muscles only consuming the minimal physical necessity)