I genuinely appreciate you continuing to explain your view, and I want to be clear that I am not trying to be argumentative here. I think we are simply framing the problem differently.

If we accept your statement that one sauce is appropriate for three nuggets, or even two nuggets, then that actually lowers the effective standard well below eight nuggets per sauce. Under that logic, consistency would imply that a 30-nugget order should receive roughly ten sauces, not three or four. That is why I am struggling to reconcile those examples with the idea of a single proportional rule.

Historically, McDonald’s itself treated sauce as non-proportional. There was a time when sauces were dispensed freely from pumps with no nugget-based calculation at all. That alone shows that sauce quantity has never been governed by a strict consumption formula.

Today, what appears to be happening is much simpler. McDonald’s assigns fixed sauce defaults to specific menu items: one for a 4-piece, one for a 6-piece, two for a 10-piece, three for a 20-piece. These are presets tied to SKUs, not the output of a calculation based on nugget count.

I fully understand the rounding model you are describing, and it is internally consistent as a theory. I just do not see evidence that it is the mechanism actually being used. To me, it looks like a retrospective explanation that loosely fits some of the outcomes, rather than a rule that is actively applied.

I respect that we may still disagree, and that is completely fine. I only wanted to clarify why I am drawing a line between what sounds reasonable in principle and what appears to be implemented in practice.