The flagship study showed a shared transition band across five topology families. The controlled follow-up then showed that coupling mainly trims failure margin rather than relocating the threshold by much.
The strongest flagship result is the overlay itself: different network families cross the cliff at different exact points, but they still cluster inside the same narrow regime.
The topology differences are real, but they refine the claim rather than destroy it. The shared regime survives family-level variation.
When system size is fixed and utilization plus coupling are swept directly, the threshold remains utilization-led.
The follow-up weakens any stronger claim that coupling alone sets the universal threshold.
The real operational effect of tighter coupling is not a dramatic threshold relocation. It is a narrower buffer to failure once a system is near the cliff.
The evidence supports a more careful claim than "one universal threshold rules everything." StressLab found a shared utilization-led collapse regime across domains. Coupling is important, but mostly because it makes near-threshold systems less forgiving.
That is useful both scientifically and operationally: the threshold tells you where the cliff is, while coupling tells you how little disturbance it may take to fall over it.