Really, cause that seems like a change from this:
Which reads a lot like you running out of road on the actual discussion we're having, flipping to something else with a better justification to it, then flipping back with a weak argument that's already been punctured.
The inherent bit of sensory stuff is perception the attribute and not alertness or awareness, and appeals to nature aren't terribly good ones to make when talking about making extreme changes with magic.
Note that I'm not making these arguments about the charm in general use, or even use on people like teenagers who are also still developing.
This is specifically about extreme changes performed over a short period of time on someone who's less a blank slate than they are hard at work to grow enough to meet the requirements to be one.
To review, my argument is that:
1) Exceptionally young children are uniquely vulnerable to pretty much everything, and sudden skill ups would through a host of simple feedback loops and basic human psychology are fairly likely to have an outsized impact on their development.
2) To a certain extent any sort of early education or advantages have this sort of effect, but our ability to enhance is so significant relative to her nonexistent baseline that it can reach an unhealthy degree of influence.
3) Not every potential gift has the same risk profile, or retains it across all stages of development. The more passive the ability is in terms of mental load the less likely it is to be a problem at an early step.
4) Because of the fact that we can't change her mental stats (and that doing so would be a bad idea anyway) she can't make effective use of anything we can give her in the next months to years anyway.
5) Therefore the optimal approach is to take the same set of potential bonuses and break them into small steps executed in reverse order of impact.
Note that this equally applies to something like strength. The issue with giving her that one young is that we don't want her to suplex her mother, not that it'd mess up her brain.
This is in no way equivalent to teaching young children, despite using the same mechanism for measuring the changes, because it is so extreme and immediate.
It's sort of like suggesting that since getting places faster is nice, and using cars is a perfectly normal thing for humans to do, that we should make Amanda a rocket sled stroller.
John Stapp demonstrated a human can withstand 46 gs of acceleration, but if you'd put him in that test vehicle the month he was born you'd probably be scraping him off the upholstery afterwards.
To extend it further, the concerns about influence in general map to questioning if we're responsible for the direction she goes or if she hits something when we turn it on, and the argument I'm hearing back to "don't worry, we put her in a booster seat by the steering wheel and she was going to learn to drive at some point anyway".
Suggesting it in any way makes her safer is like claiming her rocket sled will let her win any street race Nicodemus may challenge her to, and so on.
The metaphor breaks down when talking about what's reasonable to do instead, but I'm not suggesting we do nothing. Just that we keep it to scale with what she can reasonably handle.
