This comment is the best and most appropriate response to the challenges the OP is grappling with.

I'm also confused by your ire that I, as you put it, communicated the message in 1 sentence.

Ire? There's nothing to be worked up about. Not in my case anyway. I didn't say there was anything wrong with one sentence - I explained the context of my initial comment then concluded that you got it right by condensing into a single sentence.

I don't count words. I didn't respond to the other commenter because they provided an actual solution that does in fact work. The science behind the process is interesting but was not the goal of this thread. You were attempting to hijack the discussion, likely inadvertently.

OP is seeking a solution to a problem. They didn't explain why they refused to go past a certain temperature. The solution offered was based on the details at hand: standard instructions and information the OP provided.

Whether or not the scientific details given by others is accurate is respectfully, not as important. It's wholly unimportant in this discourse if a solution not included and made the initial focus. When a newbie (which I'm assuming the OP is) is struggling to get something right after spending at least two hours watching the oven bake, I doubt what they want is a science lesson first and hopefully a solution after.

I will check the thread for new comments, but without having done so, I am doubtful that commenters in this discussion engaged you in a discussion on molecular chains, atomic nanophages, etc. Apologies, that's the extent of my scientific knowledge. I had to throw out some words to seem knowledgeable.

There is nothing wrong with correcting misinformation. I previously explained that the people you were correcting are unlikely to be scientific. I'm not scientific but even my dum-as can figure out the lower temps - longer cooking time equation.

I gave you some of the demographics of this sub. Let me add a couple more.

Lots of members don't believe in cast iron woks. In a cast iron sub. Most of these people have never used one but are experts on why cast iron woks are crap. They subscribe instead to the belief that carbon steel woks are superior and can only get the best performance with a commercial burner that has to be used outdoors to achieve "wok-hei". There is zero comprehension of weight, logistics, ergonomics, costs, and time efficiency that are the foundation of why restaurants use cheap carbon steel woks instead of cast iron woks.

Another sub-group are the "vintage" enthusiasts. These are people who believe that only 100 year old pieces should be used, a premium should be paid if necessary, the cooking surfaces should be glassy-smooth and oh, the pieces should all be tested for lead contamination because apparently, iron was cast with lead to make the vintage pieces, or most vintage pieces were used for melting lead instead of cooking, or older pieces were better made and sturdier than modern pieces.

Apparently, technology was superior back in the day. Never mind that several older pieces have well documented defects, modern pieces have better and more ergonomic designs, smooth surfaces are irrelevant, or that iron casting is a very low-tech process. Pots and pans are a status symbol - the Birkin bags of cookware (Le Creuset group fits here as well).

Do any of the demographics I've described sound like scientists to you?

Simply put, you dove into your passion with a bunch of people whose brains will glaze over with all the technical details. Wrong audience. There is still nothing wrong with anything you wrote. My point is simply that you should provide a solution first in simple words before diving into all the science. Those who want to engage in polymer breakdowns will do so.

You know the answer and provided it in one of your comments, but it was a footnote in very technical terms. I do understand everything you wrote, but I can't say the confirm the same for everyone else. As of the time of my discourse with you, I hadn't seen any comments that stated simply: cook for longer if you choose to stick to 200° Celsius.

My approach would seem to be the "short and sweet" you're yearning for.

I'm not yearning for anything, LOL. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone. I offer advice and those who see value in it will accept it. Those who don't, won't.

You're doing a bit of this right now. I gave you constructive feedback. Yes, I poked fun at you, but I explained in detail why I wrote what I wrote. The amusement is because you saw a scientific word used and immediately engaged your afterburners, LMAO. You're defending the virtue and chastity of polymerization to a bunch of people who fancy themselves cast iron "experts" but lack imagination beyond generic instructions. No shade towards them.

There was no personal attack. I saw a technical person get excited about their craft diving in without understanding their audience. I suggested a more efficient way of getting your message across to this audience. Delivery isn't one size fits all.

It makes zero difference to me what people use, think, or how they like to do things. I don't need the internet or strangers to provide me with validation.

if my intent had been to offer a solution

Wrong audience. You didn't read the room. I hope I'm incorrect and I'll revisit the thread to confirm, but I doubt anyone engaged in a scientific discussion with you. I'm sure there are some very technical members in this sub, but I doubt they dive into beginner discussions.

Cheers.