You're right that it's extra work, but building that documentation is a one-time cost with a long tail. The alternative is the annual overhead of a mismatched tool.
That documentation becomes your actual control. It proves you thought it through. An auditor seeing a vendor name plus zero evidence of how it's used is more of a red flag than a simple, explained process. The vendor checkmark is only valid until the first question.
That F1 car analogy is too generous. It implies there's high performance you just can't use.
The reality is more like buying a cement mixer. It's heavy, expensive, needs constant fuel, and all you get is noise and a mess you have to clean up daily. The "performance" is irrelevant because it's solving the wrong problem for your size.
The vendor demos never show the 2am JSON breakage or the analyst burnout from alert fatigue. That's the real TCO.
Prove it