Is this a case of contractor over-engineering, NASA downplaying the abilities, both, neither? I don't mean any of that derogatorily. I know you'd rather announce the low numbers and look like champs when you get better than anounce high numbers and look like chumps when you get lower. It seems to be a bit of pride on NASA contractors building things that far exceed minimum mission requirements. I'd hate to be the contractor that gave NASA something that worked exactly as proposed, and then stopped working immediately. While it would be "successful", you'd hate to then be compared to Curiosity
The power budget had conservative safety margins because of the uncertainties. At this point, the uncertainties are gone, and they accomplished every objective of this tech demo. So they are just stress testing it, pushing it over the safety limits. The last landings were really tight, and the helicopter barely made it. Ingenuity is not a scientific instrument - it's a one-time proof of concept that got accepted into the mission at the last moment. It's essentially disposable now.
I get what you/they mean by it's not a scientific instrument, but yet it is at the same time. Like you said, they are pushing things, learning, gaining knowledge, etc. That's pretty much the job of scientific instruments. It's just that's it's all bonus learning.
