First, I didn't say there were only four factors. Please don't lie about what I posted. There can be a HUGE multitude of things to consider (e.g. tooling depreciation schedules, projected product lifecycles, expected maintainability and warrenty expenses, etc., etc.) depending on what's being costed which neither you nor I mentioned. Thankfully, both examples I used are fairly simple and straightforward.
In the end, it's all (in theory) about maximizing profit given the profit margin/unit vs. sales volume relationship. Well, except for the obvious exceptions of course like loss leaders (e.g. Costco rotisserie chickens) and attention-getters like the Giant Opinel which function more like a form of advertisement for the company, than a real revenue runner.
It's clear the Giant Opinel's price has little relationship to its COS. That gives me pause when it comes to purchasing. That's really neither here nor there when compared to some knives which have an even weaker (much weaker in some cases) price/COS relationships.
Some seem to get very defensive about this? Perhaps because they own products whose price have little relationship to their COS? Frankly I don't care.
There are so many factors that people just don’t think about that go into the cost of a good or service that price/COS should be irrelevant unless the ratio is glaringly out of range.
Will the $100 Esee do the same work as a $300+ Carothers? Pretty much. I have both. But if you spend some time using knives in the woods or in a trade, you start to appreciate longer edge holding from better steel and the slicing that comes from being thin behind the edge. Or the better handle design. And of course often overlooked by many knifemakers is sheath design.