The short answer is that the relationships are not linear. One can orient very different functions in Cartesian space in such a way as to have them intersect at a given point or have them appear to have a proportional relationship over some sequence of dependent values. If one were to look at a handful of these points and nothing else, one might conclude that a proportional relationship exists. They would be wrong. Very wrong.Okay, you're familiar with math and physics, so let's talk specifics. First, let me correct myself. I am keeping loads for a few different calibers in my head and the 100 gr. bullet was for a different caliber that I am reloading. There is a 115 gr. load of a faster burning powder (Varget) for the 7mm RM. The starting load is 53 gr. There is a 115 gr. load of Varget for the 7mm-08. The starting load is 43 gr. That's 23% more powder for the starting load of a faster powder, for the exact same bullet (Speer HP) for the 7mm RM. There is a CFE 223 load for the 7mm-08 for the exact same bullet. The starting load is 45.4 gr. Please explain what physics would come into play that would make a maximum 23% increase (55.8 gr.) in the slower burning CFE 223 for the exact same bullet in the 7mm RM unsafe. I'm not trying to work up a load for maximum accuracy or velocity. I'm only trying to melt some copper so that it will get wiped out with one pull of a dry boresnake. I'm aware that too little powder might result in a bullet not leaving the barrel, but that will be detected by the boresnake and it seems highly unlikely. So it really seems extremely unlikely that I would be risking rifle or life if I started with 46 - 55 gr. of CFE 223 and then looked for signs of over/under pressure.
And regarding the dueling experts, can you really call someone an expert at something they haven't tried? I understand that there are people here who have a lot of experience at working with custom barrels that they breakin properly and keep fairly clean, but none so far have said that they tried to do what others have said that they have successfully done. If you were showing me the results of borescoping or some other means of detecting efficacy of copper removal, I would be foolish not to listen, but I'm not seeing that. So is there nobody on this site who has tried this?
Internal ballistics are three-dimensional problems. Thinking about them in a two-dimensional way can ruin your rifle and/or initiate your entry into the health care system. One does not need first hand experience to know that something will either work or it won't. Newtonian physics and extensions thereof do a pretty good job of explaining almost all of the observed behaviors in physical systems. One need not independently derive gravitational constants every time one drops a coffee mug in the kitchen to KNOW that the mug will end up in a hundred pieces all over the kitchen floor.
And as JRS said, you are not going to melt copper and remove it by continuing to shoot. If you want to listen to internet jockeys that claim they can shoot a bore clean, go ahead. On the other hand, you may want to consider the collective advice of folks that have been 'at this a while'. The notion that one can shoot a bore clean is preposterous. It has never been done. If you figure out how to do it, you will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.