if we have >50% equity against villain's continuing range, and he's unlikely to bluff over our value bet, it really isn't super relevant whether we have top set or bottom pair. there are people who's gameplay that i respect who say that it isn't a bad exercise to as of the flop decide on your hand strength and how big of a pot you're comfortable getting in vs a villain and more or less aiming for that pot size. However, i suspect this has much more to do with teaching oneself pot discipline and recognizing when villain is placing more value in their hand than they'd expect
to do with too many hands, than it has to do with actually believing from a theoretical standpoint that "pot controlling the turn" with a hand that dominates their turn calling range is an awesome play. that was a long and convoluted sentence, but the point is your application of pot control doesn't is pretty discordant with basic poker logic.

another point, poker is all about capitalizing on opponent's mistakes, and since even the best 10nl regs are laughably mistake-prone, we should be giving people the opportunity to make as many mistakes as possible. for example, in hand 2 it would prolly be bad for villain to expect too many tagg-ish looking unknowns at 10nl will be double barrelling this board an extreme amount of times as a bluff, and since we iso'ed from the SB, our range is prolly strong, so hands like KJ SHOULD be unhappy about this spot. however, we can't at all assume that some random 10nl fucktard will recognize this and even if he does, he still isn't likely to make the perfect decisions in this tough of a spot a large percentage of the time. this on top of the fact that he's not folding QJ, T9, 98, etc and so on and so forth makes betting the path that maximizes OUR expectation of value and HIS expectation of making a mistake.

long and likely confusing post, but i feel that many people misunderstand application of pot control