> Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one.

This is good: we live in objectively good times and safe/wealthy countries where problems are relatively minor and we should focus on debating and compromising, not having know-it-all unbounded captains.

Our first focus is risk management: not having systems that make it easy for the Putin/Erdogan and Trump-like individual to ruin everything.

Well it depends : you can easily slip into a "tyranny of the majority" setup where the parties in power don't need to accommodate the needs of the minority. Also if your regime is optimized for solving minor issues, it will have a hard time when there are important ones.

In general, there is no silver bullet, and as Solon (creator of the first constitution in the Antiquity) put it, each country will need a custom regime to fit its specific culture and society.