Thirteen measures from Sinai?

?????
I'm just asking whether the thirteen virtues (which the Torah requires of course, not the thirteen virtues of mercy that are written in the Torah) were given in your opinion at Sinai or were they invented or evolved later?

In the Sages, this appears very little. The early ones all agree on this. I have no criterion to determine whether it is or not, and in my opinion no one does. In the second book on Talmudic Logic, I explained why when they say that the qualities are the LBM, they do not mean that they came down from there as is and reached us. There is quite clear evidence that they underwent development, expansion, and conceptualization throughout the generations. What I show in the book is that this development is based at every stage on its predecessors. In other words, there is no invention here, but rather a conceptualization and refinement of what has passed through tradition.

I will summarize what I want to ask – it is not necessarily about the 13 virtues but about the sermon in general. Is the sermon ‘correct’ that is, does it reflect the intention of the giver of the Torah, which is supposedly true only if he said it, or is it an invention.
If we have no good reason to believe that it was given at Sinai, then everything that is taught according to it is supposedly fundamentally wrong, and then as I understand your system, we are not obligated to it (because we are obligated to the Talmud only if it is not based on fundamentally wrong).

There is also a sermon in the Bible in Ezekiel, in the Book of Chronicles and in the Book of Psalms.
Rabbi Jonathan Sachs, in his book Crisis and Covenant, expands on this point.

I have already answered that in my opinion the standards are the LBM in the flexible sense. The fact that the standards came down from Sinai does not mean that the sermon reflects the intention of the Giver of the Torah. The sages who preach use their own understanding and can be wrong. But this is the authorized interpretation of the word of God and therefore it is binding.

Your Honor, if the sages demanded and used their reasoning and can indeed make mistakes, what do we do when we discover this?

I have an example where the sages demand something from the Great Virtues and do not demand it in something similar. How can this be?

After all, there is logic in the Great Virtues. What is stronger, the Great Virtues or any other rules other than the Great Virtues. How do you conclude this?

When they discover this, they change whether there is authority to do so (when there is a Sanhedrin). If not, then they act according to the ruling of Chazal despite the error.
But it is not clear to me how to discover that there is an error there. Do you know enough about the ways of preaching to reach such a conclusion? I do not.
Applying the 13 Virtues is not mechanical. It takes into account quite a few additional data, the explanation, the textual context, tradition, various difficulties in the translation, and more.