Does open hardware certification actually change the repair experience, or does third-party parts availability matter more?

For devices in this price range, there seem to be two distinct paths to repairability. One is the open hardware route: published schematics, released BOM, OSHWA certification, design files on a public repository. The other is the well-supported closed device where third-party parts are abundant, teardown guides exist, and replacement components are stocked by multiple vendors. The question is whether those two paths converge or diverge in practice. Published design files are genuinely useful if you need to identify a component, understand a circuit, or brief a repair shop. But if the enclosure uses proprietary geometry, the firmware is technically available but practically opaque, or replacement parts are only stocked by the original vendor, the certification starts to carry less weight than it implies. Conversely, a closed device with strong third-party ecosystem support can be more practically repairable than an open one with sparse parts availability and a small user base. For devices you would actually recommend under $250, which factor has mattered more in real repair or modification scenarios: the openness of the design documentation, or the depth of the surrounding parts and repair ecosystem? And are there specific cases where the published files made a concrete difference rather than just existing as a theoretical resource?