The BBC is widely and justly praised! So long as you like its choices, everything is great. Central coordinators can, as you say, earn widespread praise and acclaim.

What happens if you're an artist that the BBC isn't interested in supporting? What happens when the BBC runs out of budget for the year?

You can't make it because you don't have the budget. Then you start a YouTube channel appealing to the lowest common denominator and die a little more inside each day as you yell "ring that bell" umpteen times whilst pumping out content to avoid losing the favor of the algorithm. But you find success so keep doing it whilst hoping you remain popular and don't get demonetized. You still don't get to make the thing you wanted because you know that sort of content is not successful but eh, it's a living.

Or you pitch your idea elsewhere because people have realized that the strong model of the BBC that allows it to take creative risks can work elsewhere.

Really, what I'm looking for is if you've thought about the failure modes of centralized management of resources and tastemaking. It seems you believe there are no different ones. Is that accurate?

No, why on earth would you take that from a few comments here? It seems rather condescending and presumptuous. And as the great example of YouTube shows pseudo-democratizing those things doesn't actually fix them either.

In that case, please correct me! I would like to know more about your thoughts on the failure modes of centralization vs democratization in the arena of artistic production and resourcing.

I understand if you consider such questions condescending and presumptuous, though.

Given you're presenting a false dichotomy, I've already corrected you and I have no need to take a test(!?) from you I'm going to venture there is no further useful conversation to be had.