What lore do you ignore?

[ZavosEsperian]

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

Anything you say? I dislike restating myself, or requoting stuff I have quoted earlier, but for the sake of time I will leave out Yoshi-P's personal interpretation as that is his own opinion and only state what the writers’ intent was as fact, as Yoshi-P says this initial response on behalf of the writing team.

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

Any extra constraints added are invented by you, and thus make your argument invalid to the writers’ point of view, which is leaving everything open to interpretation. In addition, the argument I am stating is on the basis of possibility, whereas yours requires absolutes.

The task you have in proving your statement with the writers' given constrains is not provable. You can only prove it based on contrivances of your own making by adding your own view of various story points into the writer's vision. Under those contrived constrains, you can prove yourself correct, but under the constraints the writers laid out, you can never be correct for sure, which means your argument is always false unless the writers explicitly say yours is correct.

In addition, to prove my argument correct, all I would have to prove the existence of an alternate timeline inside of the story as to show it is consistent with the writers’ constraints (I don't actually have to do this since their interpretation is open, I am doing this just for you), which we know of existing thanks to G'raha Tia's jump from his timeline where the 8th Umbral Calamity occurred and its continued existence via Tales from the Shadow: An Unpromised Tomorrow. It does not matter whether the timeline survives to the end or not, the only thing that matters in my argument is if the possibility exists, which due to the existence of this timeline and its continued existence, thus proving my argument as always true.

Hermes is a different issue altogether. Neither one of us can definitively prove their answer. The difference is the scope of the proof. Yours requires Hermes to turn out bad every time, whereas mine only requires him to do as I have said one time for it to be true. My original argument did invoke an infinity when discussing Hermes as its only contrivance because you are using an argument that also invokes infinity as you directly state the following:

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it.

By invoking the term ‘any’, you are creating a scenario where there are a possible infinite number of timelines and you would have to go and prove for all timelines this being true. Additionally, the information you gate with his memory loss is not subject to the effects of Kairos as I have explained earlier. With those memories freed from your contrived example via proving your statement regarding those memories as false, I can then use them in my argument which, thanks to you using the term ‘any’ is also subject to this infinity, and since my statement is existential, proving it would simply take the writers adding in one scenario where he takes the actions you said he won’t do. Please note us arguing our points doesn’t make one more valid than the other, as neither of these events have been proven to exist or have never been stated to occur in every case, thus both of our arguments are false. The point I am making is you using false information/restrictions via headcanon/interpretation causes your arguments to be extremely poor arguments due to how you frame them in the face of the writers’ point of view as well as invoking terms and conditions you may not intend to. As such, it is rather pointless for either of us to get held up on this argument.

I would suggest in the future to heed your own advice at the beginning of this discussion, it will help you in the future as you appear to defy your own expectations by placing artificial constraints on the story.

(…), you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.