This is fair, and I don't have all of the necessary pieces of probability data to make this an exact science, but it holds that the direct comparison between the probability of an onside recovery and a defensive three-and-out also isn't really what we should be looking at to judge the decision. There's a lot more to consider than that.
I'm just estimating based on what I have available, which is the general range of WP% prior to the onside being made (within 2-3%) and the probability of an onside recovery. Extrapolating from that, I really don't think it was worth defending the one realistic path we had towards a win over taking that chance at making it a real game.
This reasoning, to me, is objective. My reasoning is not a subjective determination based on an agenda to defend Pete Carroll, which is the accusation.