HTTP Switchboard "seems to need more micromanagement" compared to NoScript

Not really. I supposed the erroneous impression stems from all the cells in the matrix. It does not require more management. If a user wants to allow one script from one page, one click is sufficient with HTTP Switchboard, just like NoScript. Admittedly though, if a user wants to allow one or more scripts permanently, an extra click is required, to tell HTTPSB to persist the whitelisted cells in the matrix.

####Consider NoScript:

####And now HTTPSB:

In both case, one single click was required to enable scripts temporarily from arstechnica.com.

From the two screenshots, one can see however that HTTPSB refers to more hostnames than NoScript: It is because HTTPSB will report all net traffic, i.e. not just that of scripts on the page. In the example above, one can see that with out-of-the-box settings, HTTPSB also blocked a tracking pixel from condenast.112.2o7.net.

Of course, the more scripts allowed by a user, the more tracking pixels and other annoyances are going to be reported by HTTPSB. To get the same level of information and control, a user would have to also install Request Policy aside NoScript.