My apologies. You are correct. I have difficulties in drawing any conclusions about Venus as I can't think of anything where 3 hours of human time would make a difference, so I used Mars (and to a lessor extent Rosetta) as the comparisons.

I researched various proposed Venus landings, like VISE, but still struggle to find something where a human in the near proximity would make that big of a difference.

That is, assuming landing can wait until Earth and Venus are at conjunction, and that 7° of angular separation is enough for a good single, then they are about 38 million kilometers apart, or 2.2 light minutes, so there's a 4.5 minute lag for ground control on Earth. Compare to Mars, which at best is 54.6 million km from Earth, or 3 light minutes, giving a 6 minute lag.

So I can only assume you're talking about driving a rover, which would require a lot of feedback. But a rover can't go far in a couple of hours, and if it's traveling the entire time then it's not drilling or taking spectrographs .. neither of which require much decision making.

Instead, the blue sky plans are for things like the Landsailing Rover, which use passive wind power to move around. And unlike Mars, it seems that Venus doesn't require much in the way of navigation, with little in the way of geography, so autonomous systems might be fine for most travel.

Really, I struggle your proposal, so I'm trying to give real-world comparisons so I'm not just blabbling negativity on the internet. But do you have any examples of where the science is worth the cost of putting a human on the scene, compared to spending the same amount of money on multiple robotic probes? Because if it means putting 1 rover on Venus for 3 hours or sending 20 probes for multi-year missions to orbit around all of the other planets, plus 3 rovers on the Moon, then I can't see how the human-near-Venus rover mission is worthwhile.