What should actually count as "Mass Land Denial" — outcome, or who caused it? please share your thoughts

What should actually count as "Mass Land Denial" — outcome, or who caused it?

WotC's definition is cards that "regularly destroy, exile, bounce, keep tapped, or change what mana is produced by four or more lands per player without replacing them." Clean enough for [[Armageddon]] or [[Sunder]]. But I think the line it draws — replacement/recoverability — measures the wrong thing in a few spots, and I want to hear where people land.

Point 1 — "replacement" ignores removability. [[Wave of Vitriol]] is treated as not-MLD because it hands you basics back. But if you run few or no basics, it just deletes you, and it's a one-shot sorcery — nothing to interact with after it resolves. Meanwhile [[Blood Moon]] and [[Harbinger of the Seas]] are on the MLD list, yet they're removable permanents you can answer. So for a greedy manabase, the "official MLD" card is the one you can deal with, and the "fine" card is the one that's lethal and uninteractable. That feels backwards.

Point 2 — should fault matter? A lot of "land destruction" only happens because an opponent walked into it. [[Karmic Justice]] does nothing unless someone chooses to blow up my noncreature permanents. [[Price of Glory]] does nothing unless someone taps lands on my turn — it's a worse [[Teferi, Time Raveler]]. Best example: if an opponent plays [[Mycosynth Lattice]] and I overload [[Vandalblast]], I wipe everyone's lands — but they turned the lands into artifacts. I didn't create that, I capitalized on it. So is it MLD on my part, or just punishing a choice?

My take: the rule should weight optionality and who caused it over raw outcome. If the card is inert unless an opponent volunteers (or builds into it), that's a tax/punish, not denial.

The counterarguments I expect:

• "Bad MLD is still MLD" — function over difficulty; power level isn't the test, and using a card as a threat ("touch my board, lose lands") still produces the denial pattern.
• The bracket rule deliberately treats manabases as near-sacrosanct regardless of how someone built them, so "your fault for no basics" isn't supposed to be a defense.
• Outcome-based lines are at least objective; "who's at fault" is a slippery, arguable standard that'll just spawn more rule-0 fights.

So — where's the real line for you? Outcome, optionality, removability, or fault? And does the Lattice + Vandalblast case feel like MLD to you or not?