Doubt, foreskin and disappointment………

Maimonides (Mas 10:8) writes that even on a detached bed, years of circumcision are counted. Although some have explained that he meant only an unperforated pot that a tree penetrates, and not actual detached sheets. But opinions differed on this. Therefore, for example, the fruits of circumcision are prohibited on a tree that grows on a detached bed because of this Maimonides.
The commentary on the laws of circumcision, Aot Lev, writes that circumcision on metal is prohibited, at least according to the rabbis. But if you uproot it with a clod (which can live in it) and plant it in the ground, it is doubtful whether you count the years of circumcision from the beginning.
So if you plant it now in the ground with a clod of soil that was on the detached bed, that is another doubt that joins the doubt of the detached bed, and oh, the doubt of the spicah.

So is it allowed?
Yes, sir.

If there is indeed doubt about the substrate and you are transferring to soil with a lump that is worthy of living within it.

Just pointing out: Even if there is a reasonable doubt, on the one hand, that the correct side in the ruling is that it is forbidden, in simple terms this would be a transgression (admittedly unintentional, and there is a discussion to what extent atonement is required for an unintentional transgression that is not a crime. But it is up to you to decide).

I did not understand this comment. If it is permitted, then no atonement is needed. The permission to ease the doubt of a spiqa means that there is no need to fear the side that forbids.
Although some of the jurists have discussed the doubt of a spiqa in the spiqa of a dedina (and here it is your explanation), but this method also does not have permission to do so (and not only will atonement be needed if you transgress). But even in the doubt of a spiqa of a dedina, for most jurists it is permitted.