Methinks, you are wanting a response from me on your warrant officer proposal.

OK, an armchair civilian view, heavily influenced by the SNCOs who post here. A military needs folks who are long term, experienced, smart; and with status to supervise, educate and train those folks below them in rank - without looking down on them as "enlisted swine". Junior officers flunk that test at least in the "long term, experienced" part.

In large law firms, it's necessary to have lawyer or paralegal office managers - and, in litigation, that most important functionary, the litigation manager (a lawyer). They fit between the lawyers and the clerical staff (as to which, at least in the 60s, there was a definite gap - call it institutional culture or whatever). Those folks were not partners in the firm - and didn't expect to be. So, if effect, they were warrant officers, who had seen many young associates come and go - and not a few partners.

A smart young lawyer makes sure that he gets along with those folks - and that the "get along" is genuine on his part because they are experts at spotting phonies. They can, of course, screw you in a minute if they want to; but more important, they are a source of institutional memory and tips on the practical side of law.

I suppose analogous reasoning caused SF to go to WOs as more permanent team members and above, since Os and Team Sergeants tend to be rotated out and about.

So, yeah, your proposal has merit based on what little I know.