(arrghh.. this is getting far beyond beginner level)
But I claim that an implicit zo'e is NOT the same as an explicit one (I will leave open the question of whether you can you can use the value of "zi'o" for a "zo'e" I don't think you can, because it creates an entirely new selbri, but I will be willing to accept the opposite argument)... and I think I can get you to agree. Consider the following...
1) Some selbri have INFINITELY many numbered places (du and jutsi, notably) So are you asserting that if something doesn't have a higher order in a taxonomy, for example, that I have to add an infinite number of "zi'o" to any sentence using "jutsi" (since "zo'e" won't do?).
2) (weaker argument) Besides numbered places, every selbri has a infinite number of unnumbered places, from BAI and all FIhO SELBRI FEhU. (and reasonably, other sumti tcita such as tenses might be considered to be subsumed in here as well). Do all these have implicit zo'e? How about those that cannot make any sense? (You can easily undercut this argument by saying "implicit zo'e-dom only applies to numbered places. But then again, remember that you CAN say "mi blanu lo mlatu" and there "lo mlatu" is basically equivalent to "do'e lo mlatu", but it is explicitly in a numbered (but unknown relationship) sumti place. You can have an infinite number of these, so this becomes argument #1).
If you accept either argument 1 or 2, you must concede that either every sentence is "faulty" (your word), or that you don't have to specify every place, and that doesn't invalidate bridi (so implicit zo'e must either be different than explicit zo'e, or can also include values like "zi'o" or "no da")
--gejyspa