"One extra thing that using larger drives will accomplish is it...

"One extra thing that using larger drives will accomplish is it will allow the production rate to be upscaled very significantly."

Davisite - if you consider production rate as based on tonnage then yes it will be upscaled , but does that mean ounces as a derivative of tonnage will also increase at the same rate with wider drives on a thin vain as all I see is dilution ?
I can not see a direct relationship and it is ounces that is the payment not tonnage .
Why increase tonnage with diluted ore from wider drives and then have to go back to using an ore sorter which will have some recovery losses to once again upgrade the ore ?

The ore sorter effectively becomes the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - ok I am being the devils advocate but feel its too easy to make assumptions for or against increasing tonnage rate without detailed analysis of quantifying all the variables .
I personally prefer the Lee Junk (DRM) idea of reducing dilution ie split shot firing or simultaneous resue firing at the stope if they are going to use wider drives rather than using an ore sorter - no Capex and done before the ore is mucked out .

https://www.scribd.com/document/321318937/Resue-Firing-and-Dilution-Control-in-Narrow-Vein-Mining

Also maybe there is a way to use a narrow track LHD to carry more ore than just in its bucket so allowing narrower drives but increasing production ie remote tramming possibly with a longer or heavier counterbalanced machine

http://amcconsultants.com/experience/methods-to-control-excessive-dilution/