When the core proposition "always prioritize acceptance when acceptance and struggle conflict" is applied consistently across all of life, what is the concrete boundary at which limiting struggle to a level of agency close to a hobby becomes a reasonable judgment?

I think it depends on how much the person's 'acceptance' can buffer the practical factors. If one already has acceptance of the ideal level, like that of an immortal sage, then even when the environment poses a threat to one's existence, one can feel that threat only superficially and see acceptance through. But if, without yet having fully affirmed finitude, one forces the struggle into a mere hobby, neglecting struggle in the practical sense, one may be largely wrecked by threats arising from resources that were never secured.

It is more intuitive to extend finitude to 'death as a physical reality.' After all, this is about an existential question. I do not dwell much on physical death, but I rely on alternatives such as 'securing the eternity of existence by being remembered through my works.' At my level of acceptance, I can bear the 'disregard of struggle' that carries a cost such as risk to life, but if I had to pay a greater price than that, I think I would not be able to bear it and would regret it. For example, if I neglected a social problem that I can recognize, anticipate, and respond to, and missed the chance to respond, I think I would deeply regret it.

In this way, there is no absolute, concrete boundary line; it is fluid and depends on each person's circumstances. That is my answer.