Would it be completely unreasonable to allow `fundrawtransaction` to use unsafe outputs?

I understand this means the resulting transaction may be invalidated whenever the unsafe output I'm relying one disappears (e.g. because the transaction that produced it was RBF-ed) but in my case that's ok, I'll react to that and re-publish the tree of child transactions accordingly.

But let me know if you think that's too much of a footgun for users, in that case I'll architect my solution differently.
CPubKey key(solutions_data[i].begin(), solutions_data[i].end());
                pubkeys.push_back(HexStr(key));
            }
            obj.pushKV("pubkeys", std::move(pubkeys));
        }
    }
    explicit DescribeWalletAddressVisitor(const SigningProvider* _provider) : provider(_provider) {}
    UniValue operator()(const CNoDestination& dest) const { return UniValue(UniValue::VOBJ); }
    UniValue operator()(const PKHash& pkhash) const
    {
        CKeyID keyID{ToKeyID(pkhash)};
        UniValue obj(UniValue::VOBJ);
        CPubKey vchPubKey;
        if (provider && provider->GetPubKey(keyID, vchPubKey)) {
            obj.pushKV("pubkey", HexStr(vchPubKey));
            obj.pushKV("iscompressed", vchPubKey.IsCompressed());
        }
        return obj;
    }
    UniValue operator()(const ScriptHash& scripthash) const
    {
        CScriptID scriptID(scripthash);
        UniValue obj(UniValue::VOBJ);
        CScript subscript;
        if (provider && provider->GetCScript(scriptID, subscript)) {
            ProcessSubScript(subscript, obj);
        }
        return obj;
    }
    UniValue operator()(const WitnessV0KeyHash& id) const