Thus, I really care about LE getting the right IP, I don't care about random users' DNS getting hijacked because their browser will reject the missing/invalid certificate.
The right way to think about this CA issue is this:
* The largest, best-funded, savviest security teams in tech are, like the rest of tech, not signing their domains; the major TLDs are overwhelmingly not signed (there is low single digit uptake in .COM for instance, and what's there is overwhelmingly not big companies but rather random domains signed by registrars that auto-sign). Nobody who's actually targeted for CA misissuance attacks uses DNSSEC to mitigate that threat.
* The WebPKI already has a system in place to guard against misissuance that, unlike DNSSEC, actually does work: Certificate Transparency. So if you're actually concerned about CAs not issuing bogus certs for you, match your revealed preferences to your stated ones and set up CT monitoring.
I would appreciate it if you would update your other comments in this thread clarifying that, as we both now agree they are incorrect.
Meanwhile if DNSSEC's vision is ever fully realized, you will lose that control entirely. There is no CT there, and even if it was build somehow it will be useless as it has no "teeth".
This is a false dichotomy. DNSSEC secures DNS records, it doesn't prevent logging certificate issuance.