The issue of official binpatches is not a critical problem, but it is still a problem. It is a security and usability issue simply not present in the vast majority of nix systems, and that should be acknowledged rather than downplayed, as this facet of OpenBSD is usually an unpleasant surprise for potential converts.

Repeating "secure by default" seems rather disingenuous when a freshly-installed system needs extra attention, and cannot automatically fetch the latest security updates.

Updates may be "trivial" to you, but they are still clearly more complex than the average system, as they require individual attention and recompilation. These speedbumps to security are not what "secure by default" implies.

Alternatively, relying on a third-party tool (and having to vet that extra party) is not "secure by default" either.

Your final points are distracting from the issue and verging on ad-hominem. Firstly, first-party binpatches are so prevalent that noticing their absence is hardly significant scrutiny. Secondly, just because OpenBSD is very good in some areas doesn't mean we can ignore deficiencies in other areas.