We're all in the same boat.
I've been thinking some more about your comment on the amount of EFAs from a 'evolutionary' perspective, trying to see if it can inform an even better guideline. But it really hasn't, it seems cellular biology may provide more insight. There are 2 camps in that school. The Ray Peat camp says they're poison basically and that as a result we should do our best to eliminate them completely. The CW camp says they're beneficial and that we should supplement of course.
Either could be right, I don't think paleoprimatology can really decide. Here's why:
We know natural 'toxins' were present in the paleo environment. Maybe EFAs are toxins and Grok simply adapted to tolerating a low % of daily intake of them. On the other hand, they could be beneficial, and if so, Grok had to adapt to a limited supply of them. So, following the 'practical' approach of keeping them low, say 4% or less of daily calories, puts us in the same boat as Grok. But, becoming more extreme (body hack) and assuming we guess the correct direction (eliminate or supplement) would put us in a better position health-wise than Grok ever was.
It would seem enough people have tried the supplement approach but I don't see any overwhelming evidence of indisputable benefit.
(1) I am 100% on-board with the primal exercise blue print. It reduces the problem of exercise down to its simplest form and provides a solution that can be used for a lifetime.
(2) I'm not on-board with the primal diet blue print. In fact, I'm not on-board with any diet plan but a man can hope to find the right answer before it's too late.