My take on the Pro vs Con:
The only real con is that EFI depends on electricity. That means there needs to be a reliable source on the plane.
Other conditional cons:
It costs money to add to an engine that doesn't already have it. For those of us that grew up with carbs it means learning new things. (It's not hard

) For the purposes of this thread there is no
good OTS solution. That means development time and money. If closed loop is used 100LL is a problem.
Neither pro or con:
Failure modes. Both EFI and carbs have them. Obviously they are of different types in some cases but overall I think history is proving that a properly designed EFI is more reliable than carbs.
Pro: (not all would apply to the simple system being proposed)
Automatic altitude compensation is easy to implement.
Better fuel economy is possible due to better control.
More power possible for the same amount of fuel used.
Less pilot interaction needed.
Inverted flight is possible.
Can be designed to run any fuel between 100LL and pure ethanol and in any combination.
EFI starts far better in cold weather.
EFI can be less prone to vapor lock.
EFI is generally less likely to develop carb ice. Yes, EFI can experience intake ice.
EFI is easier to adapt to a turbo than a carb.
EFI software can track trends to help predict failure - similar to progressive failure of a carb.
EFI software can speed repair through the use of trouble codes. Each sensor can be checked statically, and dynamically with an o'scope or a serial interface, like CAN.
For these little industrial engines it might be lighter as well - even considering the fuel pump and filter.
EFI can be directly interfaced with an engine monitor via the software and something like a CAN bus. No need to add sensors just for the engine monitor.
???