since apps do have much greater access to the parent device then a website

I’m not disagreeing at all that this should have been a website as a backup, but you yourself are making some really good points about how apps aren’t the same thing as websites and the benefits to using an app in this situation. Leveraging user hardware without the intermediate layer of a brower’s sandbox is good for performance and makes a site much more robust in the face of things like DDOS, and having locally-hosted resources with which the user can interact without requiring an active TCP connection (because for example: ICE has geoblocked connectivity at one of their “enforcement actions” - but you can still document what’s happening and the app will automatically-and-without-user-interaction upload what you’ve given it once connectivity is restored) is an incredibly important feature.

Offline websites, while potentially able to exhibit similar behavior, rely on extremely hacky workarounds and cached data to be able to do it - and an app is a much less volatile way to store that data than relying on your browser’s cache reintegration (which will often be dumped if you’re hit with bad a DHCP config).

I think your spirit is in the right place, but you’re missing enough of the technical nuance that it’s really undermining your ability to convincingly make your point. And again, I 100% agree that not having alternative access to this service is a critical loss.