I disagree. As the linked article should demonstrate, I have settled on a simple approach not because I don't get the need for subtlety in our systems, but because I spent forty years practicing tax, pension, and insurance law at the most sophisticated level, and I have a prettty good sense of which rules can be gamed and which ones can't. A straightforward UBI administered through taxable, refundable, tax credits, would, in my considered opinion, get the job done.

Trying to anticipate the tweaks will just kill the deal. In this case, the best is very much the enemy of the good, especially since the "best" is only hypothetical, i.e, we don't know that the simple plan isn't in fact the best plan. If the simple plan turns out to need tweaks, then it will be tweaked. (The program will be too popular to end.) As Napoleon famously said about war, "on s'engage, puis on voit." If the best form of UBI requires careful design, the only way to get it right will be to get it wrong first.