As a plan B the delaying tactic has merit, although it's not my primary aim.
The problem I'm finding is the complexity of the diagnosis, and diversity of individual opinion. I'm trying not to only hear what I want to hear, and look to my professional training to avoid anecdote alone, and base decisions on sound science. Your comment on small and localised is interesting - and begs the questions, what is small in this context? By localised I take it you mean gland contained?
I've read on Inspire:
the Center(s) of Excellence teaching Surgeons (Klotz University of Toronto, Eggener University of Chicgo, Pavlovich Johns Hopkins, others) and Interventional Teaching Radiologists (Raman - UCLA) are telling us that men with Gleason 7 can be treated with Ultrasound and other modalities rather than Surgery/Radiation/Radiation+Chemical Castration. It would be foolish to ignore this very powerful message from the teaching leaders at the some of the best and major Prostate Cancer managment institutions in the world.
As a G7 that seems to conflict with your view - and the above does seem an unpopular opinion on these forums - but I wondered if you have data that supports your understanding that you can point me to? As I say, I'm trying not just to hear what I want to hear.