We are back to the why of all this. Why keep proposing replacements for perfectly good forms if you acknowledge they are perfectly good? If you are just seeking some way of dealing with cases that are more difficult, why not start by building on the easy cases, rather than on some more complex forms that may do the same work? Your difficult example involves so many logically (and Lojbanically) questionable moves that it can scarcely be used as an argument for a differ approach without a number of intervening steps justifying each move past an obstacle. To good from a hypothetical version of a clear case to acclaim to have dealt with a difficult and questionable one is not very convincing.