The frame’s not going to crack, and yes, whoever it was above, the post is inserted 10mm beyond the REVERB min insert line, not some magical line on the frame!
that would be me…
SO, if posts have these min insert lines on them, they must make them with setups like this in mind.
kinda, but no, I’ve had this discussion with many a customer in the workshop after cracked/broken frame.
The minimum insertion mark on a seatpost is governed by the design limitations of the seatpost and essentially means “if at least this much of the seapost is supported then it should not bend or snap based on the length of the post, the weight of a rider (with safety margin) and the expected loads we designed it for”
The minimum insertion depth for a frame can be, and often is, different, again based on the rider weight and expected loads, putting a longer post than expected (for given frame size) puts more leverage on the frame and may go beyond those design loads, especially if less post than expected is inserted.
Otherwise by your logic seapost manufacturers must have knowledge of every frame design and spec on the market in order to say what is safe, when really it only applies to the seatpost.
Often the two depths are broadly similar, but when dealing with frames with extended seat tubes or very long posts there is a concern and often the manual will say something like “insert Xmm below seat tube/tob tube junction, or Xmm below clamp etc. and this may be more than the minimum line on the seatpost.
General guide is 100mm of insertion past the end of the set tube will probably be OK, but this is not a hard and fast rule. It really does look like you’re pushing it based on your original pic, and I say that from workshop experience of seeing plenty of cracked and broken frames, and also bitter experience of cracking a couple myself.
I’m sure you’ll be fine as generally the margins are quite generous and its a warranty arse-covering exercise especially on beefy frames like yours, but its definitely not something to be ignored.