Like in all things engineering wise, there are compromises to be made. I think it helps to think of the ignition as having available energy in wattage or volts X amps X real time in milliseconds. The spark duration in Milliseconds is apart of the equations and the less volts you need the more amps and duration of spark and vise versa. Voltage is needed to overcome the gap so if you have a larger gap it takes more voltage, however, there is less available amps & spark duration i.e. the compromise. Remembering that Amperage not volts is what does the true work.
So when you open the gap up, you lower the amps and spark duration. The entire compromise is like a game of percentages. The wider the gap in the spark plug, the more likely there will be some hydrocarbon/02 mixture floating by to be ionized by the spark and the longer the spark duration the more opportunity to find some to ionize. The leaner the mixture the more voltage it take, and lean mixture tend to have more voids or pockets of either 02 or/HC, but not necessarily together, thus lean misfire.
It’s all about the compromises that have to be made. If the mixture is too lean you need huge ignition requirements both in energy, secondary insulation and probably the most important cost. The bang for the buck is what’s it’s all about. I saw 20 to 24 to 1 air/fuel mixture being reliable used in a stand engine by using extremely wide spark plug gaps of over .200 with over 7 millisecond spark duration but the combination of high cost and short spark plug life didn’t justify the results. And just because you can ignite a very lean mixture it doesn’t mean that the results are necessarily what you want as well, because as in this case, the power got to be so low that there was no way to justify the results either.
al1