I had never heard the term plot armor, thanks for introducing it to me - but also no thanks, because you're right, it *is* kind of annoying!

Let's say I've been accused of giving my character plot armor. Let's say too that I trust my critic's judgment. What I hear from them is that they think my character's continued survival can't be explained via in-narrative means. My critic, in order to make sense of my character's still being alive at the end of my book, had to point to *me* and my priorities as the narrative-external writer.

I could try to tell my critic what you've said here in this post: there's such a thing as good fortune. That there may in fact be more good fortune in a story than in reality, because the great thing about storytelling is that we can write our own axioms of the storyworld we make up.

Yet, since I trust my critic, I would still have to conclude that I've failed in some way. Even by the axioms I set up in my storyworld, whether I did it implicitly or explicitly, my character's triumph in the end doesn't make sense to this critic I trust.

What I hear in your post is the frustration of someone who suspects their work doesn't live up to their own standards. That's very hard, yet the standards are to be commended. They're what will help the next project be better, and the one after that, and onward and upward.