The (let's-name-it) Principle - Unnecessary assumptions hinder progress and reveal our bloated sense of self-importance.
The actual word "why" itself may not be in many of your posts, but I think it underscores your position on many things, especially in the anthropomorphic form I detailed in that last response.
Despite the tendency of some to read into 'why,' it is merely the tool that opens the door to cause-effect relationships, and nothing else; it doesn't per se mean anything any deeper.
>>>"...as the term 'weak' alludes, it is not an effective response to the coincidences seen in the laws of physics."
An 'effective' response is only necessary for those who see the necessity of an 'effective' response. But this perceived necessity stems from the choice to ignore science. Science that has shown us over the years that much of what we used to perceive as 'coincidences' are actually affirmations of evolutionary principles.
Remember -- the relationship of two phenomena constitutes a coincidence only if these two phenomena have previously had nothing to do with each other.
You agree our experience has shown us that unification is a valid principle. But our experience has also shown us that what we often perceive as coincidence is NOT coincidence after all.
(Incidentally, you might want to review that Polkinghorne/Weinberg debate on counterbalance; Weinberg deflates the 'coincidental' energy levels of carbon.)
The WAP exists because its proponents acknowledge the position of the SAP proponents, and in turn respond that what we perceive as 'coincidence' is usually not coincidental at all.