Nah, you're managing to miss the point going both ways lol. It's both.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your statement is true, that you do, in fact, somehow get 10% more useful results.

The two points are:

1. That doesn't make the system better in any way lol. You've built a tool that acts like a slot machine and only works if you get three cherries. Increasing the odds on cherries doesn't change the fact that using a slot machine as a UI is a ridiculous way to work.

2. In the real world, LLMs don't think. They do not use logic. They just churn out text in non-deterministic ways in response to input. They are not reliable and cannot be made so. Anybody who thinks they can is fooling / Clever Hansing themselves.

The point here is you might feel like the system is 10% more useful, but it feels like that because human brains have some hardware bugs.