Balance in the matter is not about uniformity but about recognizing distinct incentives for each type of action. If we think about the healing of the paralytic and the teaching on the mountain, the payoffs for the engaged actors are not the same. Healing provides an immediate irrefutable proof, changing the game through demonstration of power, whereas teaching requires voluntary and gradual adherence, with uncertain outcomes.
Take the example of the AMF in France: it does not react in the same way to a verified fraud (which requires direct intervention, like healing) and to a new recommendation on corporate governance (which demands a gradual strategic integration, like teaching). Strategic responses, from the authority as well as market actors, differ significantly because the risks and perceived benefits are asymmetrical.