So much for my reasons.
I don’t know much about your wife, but regarding the other points I can already tell you: I have three pieces of good news for you.
1. Whether a house is "constructed" from stone or wood, today even a layperson can no longer tell by looking. I have been dealing with this for four decades and, in most cases, I wouldn’t bet on it in today’s new residential areas. In very few cases, precisely the timber frame panel prefabricated house—which you trust the least—has the edge when it comes to the structural feasibility of many drawn fantasies. But these cases are too few to speak of a system superiority here. Over 80% of building ideas can be convincingly implemented with all construction methods alike.
2. Mistakes with acoustic consequences can be made with all construction methods; the construction of various connection details is decisive, but no method has a system-related disadvantage. Not only visually do I often hesitate to bet, acoustically—and, by the way, also with regard to the climate, it’s similar. So basically, a builder doesn’t have to be discouraged just because his alleged "royal road" construction method offers only a narrow range of regional providers.
3. Space and indoor climate is a complex entity. For example, clay plaster in a stone house can make you just as happy as cork flooring in the "Mondholzjurte." Also, in terms of building biology, there are many shades of gray between paradise and doom.
So detach yourself—at least as an experiment in thought—from the construction method and let’s focus on your dream house, for example from the perspective of its form. In the end, I see three winners: builder, wife, and father-in-law—all three happy and satisfied with the same house. I have seen this happen here so many times already; one more time we manage it, it really won’t make a difference anymore.