Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== ### ===
* There is real evidence that multiple readers valued and appreciated the thoroughness (the praise comments you provided earlier).
* Word count alone does not settle legitimacy or “gish gallop” (because OP has a standing rebuttal: unpacking dense claims takes space; no time pressure; you can reply to one point).
* SReflection’s “defensive moats” application is not established (OP denies it with an alternate explanation that stands un-rebutted).
* Many of SReflection’s addendum inferences (“therefore give brevity weight,” “therefore defensive,” “therefore gish gallop”) are currently under standing objection and would sit as “in question.”

===== Even if OP “wins” the argumentative status game, aesthetic/editorial preferences remain subjective, e.g.: =====
* “Brevity is better for accessibility” vs “thoroughness is better for safety/context.” That one doesn’t fully die—it’s a design philosophy dispute.

If you paste any reply after OP’s last message (either from SReflection or other users), I can re-run the “standing objection” logic again—because the moment someone directly answers OP’s rebuttals, a bunch of OP-R claims may flip from ✅ to ⚔️ or ⚠️ depending on whether the counterargument stands.