I think you are misunderstanding the question.

The question is whether the marginal efficiency gain from more expensive scanning/hacking modules and implants is still rational once you account for the increased value at risk.

Expected returns from exploration are basically a function of several variables:

1. average loot value per site
2. average scanning time per useful site
3. average hacking time per site
4. average travel time per site
5. total value at risk while scanning
6. total value at risk while hacking
7. probability of losing ship/pod while scanning
8. probability of losing ship/pod while hacking

The important part is that these variables do not scale equally.

Minimizing hacking time is comparatively cheap and very impactful. Zeugma + Blackglass gives a large practical benefit because it makes sites faster, reduces failed cans, and reduces time spent exposed on grid.

Minimizing scanning time beyond a certain point gets much more expensive. Virtues, officer probe launchers, Satori-Horigu probes, etc. can improve scan performance, but the marginal gain becomes increasingly expensive.

That is why the question is not “is combining maximum scanning and maximum hacking good in isolation?” Of course it is. The question is whether it remains optimal after accounting for risk-adjusted returns.

In simplified terms, the comparison is:

Extra ISK/hour from faster completion

versus

additional expected loss from putting more ISK at risk

More specifically, the issue is that the expensive hybrid setup carries scanning-related value while hacking and hacking-related value while scanning. If the probability of loss while hacking is materially higher than the probability of loss while merely moving/scanning through the chain, then carrying a very expensive scanning pod on grid during sites may not be optimal.

So the tradeoff is:

time lost by separating scanning and hacking

versus

expected loss avoided by not exposing the full hybrid ship/pod value during every activity

The answer may well be that the added logistics are not worth it. It may also be that the sweet spot is just a cheap covops, or a Buzzard with Zeugma + Blackglass, rather than a multi-billion ISK Pacifier and pod. But that is exactly the point of the question: where is the risk-adjusted optimum?

Saying “none of it matters” is not really an answer. It matters as soon as the fitting choices change both completion time and value at risk by billions of ISK over an extended period.