at least that Sister is not malicious with administering said punishments.
Rule says don't enter the hallway. Don't touch patients "while in training".
Elderly person is choking on mochi and dying in the hallway.
Saintess goes out into the hallway to do the heimlich maneuver to save the dying person.
Elderly person survives.
Saintess is punished.
How much sense does that make?
Only difference in above is (a) immediacy, acute vs chronic condition (b) person vs plant.
In reality, you wouldn't punish a trainee saintess for demonstrating they are a great saintess.
The rules simply don't line up to their capabilities.
The Aesop's fable in this chapter is a warped isekai corruption, caused by "rules following Japan" author.
(Which has led to some terrible "culturally unique" incidents; like nuclear waste disposal, forced work drinking, etc.)
I sort of wish the author went "hard sci-fi" and whiteboarded out cultural differences.
Western cultures would at least try to suss out the "why" of an action that broke the rules.
And maybe factor in politically-motivated biases. Like "zero tolerance" laziness in public education.
Maybe the fact there's zero contextual awareness is what gets me.
(They literally just said only a great saintess could do this. Yet pretended it didn't exist.)
I get the feeling this is how they are using Saintesses as "slave-labor" by mentally cornering them.
(See:
"A Tale of the Secret Saint" / "Tensei Shita Daiseijo wa, Seijo dearu Koto wo Hitakakusu")