So again, there's no possible way to embellish a story or game that. And there are noooooo people in the administration willing to accept marginal cases, right?

Again, it's pretty hard to game it. Not impossible, but it's going to take a fair amount of detail and skill at deception in order to bluff your way past people who spend literally all their time assessing the stories of people trying to do this. It's like counterfeit money or trying to fake a casino chip - you might think you can come up with something that looks pretty good, but if you show it to someone who spends all their time around money or casino checks (like a banker or a casino dealer), it's laughable.

Marginal cases are just that - marginal. They're not someone trying to "game" their way into the system - that would be someone who has a colorable, but imperfect, argument for asylum. Many of those get turned down at the CFI, but get appealed to the judges for preliminary determination on the credible fear issue. Maybe about 10-20% of the CFI denials get reversed by a judge (it varies). But as I noted to BHM, marginal cases ought to end up (eventually) at an asylum merits hearing, because we want the marginal cases to be ruled on by judges and not just an administrative staffer.