Excellent! It's nice to get a decent response from someone on this issue, instead of the usual emotive decry that seems to be typical of many systemd detractors.
The controversy with systemd is pretty interesting. There's a fair bit of misinformation flying around, which does muddy the water. I think this misinformation seems to be the source of many people's objections to it. Unfortunately, the only way I can see to solve this is to get people using it.
What's so great about systemd? Well, going from your post, you seem to be in product development. I would think you'd be all over systemd! No need to load a shell for the boot process. That there is an immediate security improvement, as well as an improvement in memory use. Integration with CGroups makes it possible to tighten up resource allocation for subsystems, ensuring that your device doesn't crash/become resource deprived due to a runaway process. An API! Surely you can't object to an API for systemd.
How do you _know_ precisely that something is a secure system? You could do a personal security audit, I suppose, but even then, you may miss something which ends up being a security issue. Time can be a good indicator of secure software, but there are plenty of examples of time proven software which has turned out to be insecure. Even with presumably security conscious packages like libssl. You could run code auditing software on the source, but that's precisely what Red Hat do. You could release it as an open source, controversial, high profile package, and let thousands of eyes pick the code clean
Logging to syslog, or the binary database, or both, is a simple config option. You're in control here.
Geez, I throw in one line in jest, and I get shot down as making a joke of the issue, and being symptomatic of what is supposedly wrong with systemd. Yep, the whole kit and kaboodle. Can't please everyone, I suppose.