@Ovinomancer perhaps we need to proceed like this: tell me what the doubt is. Supply the question plainly. I'm happy to work in good faith to interrogate my own arguments. As noted above, if I mistake your question, then it can't be surprising if we end up in dispute about what was learned.
Had you said something like - let's see each step on the way to reaching "roll" so we see how roll was called based on meaningful consequences. Then I would count valid the subsequent interrogation. As it is, that's not what I answered so any subsequent interrogation is invalidated.
And in hindsight, I feel like that really was your actual question, but that was absolutely opaque to me. I understood that in each case "roll" had been
rightly called, and we
solely wanted to look at how the
results were going to be narrated.
If I am right about your real question, then I can see where your subsequent comments are coming from. Hopefully you can see that I answered a very different question... and when the question changed ( from my perspective) that felt like moving goalposts.