Does is somehow imply that the Dutch book argument is better developed than Cox's argument?

You asked, "Why don't you consider Cox's theorem - and related arguments - well-developed?" I consider Cox's argument not well-developed because D–S theory shows the postulates miss useful and important alternatives. So it fails as an argument for a particular interpretation of probability.

I quoted 13415 saying that the only well-developed arguments were […] and asked him why didn’t he consider […] well-developed - compared to the former. I apologize if the scope of the question was not clear.