Blessings 23:

It seems that the entire discussion here is about the rabbinical regulation. It could be suggested that a explanatory paragraph is not relevant in the Torah laws, since they usually say that I will include all of this in the explanatory paragraph, meaning that there is proof from the laws themselves that the general explanation is incorrect. This is because the rabbis did not require a reason for reading, and therefore the explanation must be general and cannot be specifically against the specific law that one wants to study. But in the rabbinical regulations, since the reason is known, then the explanatory paragraph is focused on the specific law that one wants to study, and therefore it cannot be included in the explanatory paragraph. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps there is a general conclusion here that rabbinical regulations 1) require a reason for reading, and 2) an explanatory paragraph focused on the reason for the regulation is a good explanatory paragraph. [I think I will include all of this in the answer you wrote, but it is clearer that a rabbi would bother to write it. And k”w if this is not true]

To the point, I add that if there is a focused explanation (as I suggested, since it is a rabbinical law with a reason) why is a focused explanation (sparks) good enough as a basis (explanation) for the simple and the complex, then in the end we interpret the complex and the complex with a focused explanation (in total two focused explanations), and so turtle for turtle k k k k and we no longer have a way to decide whether to trust focused explanations or not.
In the terms of the Quartet (or elsewhere?) this is an anti-paradox, because if we choose to assume that a focused explanation is not good enough then there is no counterargument (because the focused explanation that says that a focused explanation is good enough – is not good enough, as an assumption).
Although it seems more likely that a discussion of the rules of a matter of course (and not a particular matter of course) is a normal discussion like anything else and is certainly open to interpretation. In particular, the entire reason that a section of the explanation is not useful (as far as I know) is only because of all this I will include, and therefore there is no separate premise here, but rather one must check everywhere whether it is possible to include (therefore it is only possible to include in the Dauraita and not in the Dabbanah, as the explanation is focused on the reason)

Apologies for the flooding.
Google rolled me to Baba Metzia 3:2: And what is the point (an ox that goesres a cow and is found to be passing by) Daica Darra Dammona Lamar Vaika Darra Dammona Lamar Vaika Lamir Kollha Lamar Vaika Lamir Kollha Lamar Said Sumachus Mamon Motlatul HaKhokin Bilaa Uvaa, Haka (two people hold the Talit) Daica Darra Dammona [and more] Daica Lamir DaTarwiha is not at all. Even Tima Sumachus is an oath, this is from the rabbis, according to the rabbis of Yochanan, etc.
And he wrote there in Shtamk: And if you say, "May the second," then it is clear that this oath is valid from the rabbis, and in any case, it is difficult for the Sumachus Damai who hates to establish an oath of the back of a bull that has been gored, and may the second be from that. And so on, etc.
Perhaps the explanation in this matter will be like the explanation in the matter in the blessings, where the question was whether we follow a general hierarchy or according to specific beliefs, and it is clear that we follow specific beliefs. And precisely because this is a rabbi.

The Gemara:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37964&st=&pgnum=16
Stamek:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%94_%D7%9E%D7%A7 %D7%95%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%A9%22%D7%A1/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9 0_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%90/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%90/%D7%93%D7%A3_%D7%92