Just realized I had created a similar question - Thus post this as an answer
"What-if" questions, or more specifically, questions that basically state a hypothetical way of building something and ask for any known example of a real implementation tend to bother me a bit - Can this really be about retrocomputing? To me, these questions sound a bit (yes, I am exaggerating here) like
I just thought about the idea of building a computer from chocolate. Sounds like a cool idea. Has that ever been done? If not, why not?
In my opinion, retrocomputing is about getting old computers (existing, real-life examples) to work, preservation of hard- and software, documentation, ask about software for and on them and (maybe, but that's already on the verge of being off-topic IMHO) ask for technical decisions that lead (or didn't) to this or that real implementation. Why something didn't lead to a real implementation (in some examples, even without any proof that that "something" was even considered) can't be on-topic - something that is not proven to exist and hasn't been thought up years ago, cannot be retro, at least in my definition.
I think I could probably at least tolerate the same questions when proof would have been given that the technical decision in question was actually considered back in the days. Without that, they are very close to asking for the chocolate computer. Sometimes interesting, but entirely academic.
Even if these questions seem, at first glance, to ask for a simple yes (with an example) or no (which you can't possibly supply for Evidence of absence), they typically spin off a discussion on the (non-) feasibility of the idea and provoke highly opinionated answers, for which the SE format is not really suitable. SE is about facts.
I take the risk of being rude and bluntly state: I feel annoyed by such questions.