Sometimes people seem to want to FIRE right when 4% covers their basic expenses, not accounting for major expenses like increase health costs or that there have not been, IMO, enough time to be "safe" using 4% withdrawal for 50-60 years.
Basically, IMO, people here don't seem to keep enough "fat" to account for issues.
Most people here aren't willing to work at their occupation (or employer) a moment longer than the statistics say that they're "good enough", and they're not willing to collect another century of historical data when Monte Carlo can give then a roughly similar answer.
The 4% SWR already has a lot of "fat" in its approximations, especially the assumption of constant inflation-adjusted spending. We already know that people don't spend like that, and we know that most people (even those with health issues) tend to spend less overall as they age. We also know that new retirees will completely overhaul their budget to optimize their spending, and that includes having the flexibility & time for DIY and finding bargains.
In my opinion, the longevity risk you're assessing is best handled with an annuity (to support part of the spending) instead of by working longer. Maybe Social Security is all the annuity that's needed (and SS is not part of the 4% SWR either). But you have to be comfortable with your retirement finances during retirement too, and if "just one more year" makes you more comfortable then you should be willing to work for that.