On the attitude towards canonical texts

Hello,
I don’t know whether you have extra time or not, so I’ll ask for a short way and a slightly longer way.
I would be happy to know about the following topic.
The Tomitim, a shortened version of Cohen 124 or 125, I don’t remember exactly, says that although “there is no doubt” that the Shulchan and the Rema did not intend everything that the P’i’ after them in their words, “Everything is from God, upon whom be wisdom, etc., etc.,” and there is room for the T’i, even though they are not the writer’s intention.
Are there additional sources such as this on the Mishnah 3 or the Maimonides or others… on which they also made a distinction and a distinction, which to put it mildly does not seem to be what they intended…
Do we find that anyone knew that the Rambam in the Epistles retracted or contradicted his words in a certain way and yet contradicted his words not according to what he himself said, saying, “I interpret the book and I am not interested in what he (himself) wrote in the Epistle” or something like that (I heard from someone that there is one in the PMG who retracted it in the Epistle, and yet they refer to what is written in the book because they accept the book and not the man).
And in a slightly longer way, in the halakhic discussion, wherever there is “accept it” (as the Kasam Hala Memariam says), there will be an immediate need for an “expansive” interpretation, because since you are committed to the text and have questions (whether from an explanation or internal contradictions or contradictions from ancient sources), since you cannot erase the text and you do not speak with the author himself, you are forced to settle in new ways, not to say from origins…
And this is the explanation in the words of the Tomi who first said that one should not say “Kil” against the Shula and the Rema, and immediately went on to write that everything is from God, and the wise man on them, because the moment he determined that one accepts the Shula and the Rema and does not reject them, even because of their contradictions and inconsistencies, but rather chooses to accept them and thereby undertakes to say “Thi” in their context, the question arises as to what the meaning of the discussion about them is, did they really think about everything that is “Thi” in them? And since the Tomi boldly says that certainly not, he is forced to insert God, the Holy One, into the halakhic discussion… I saw in the comments there that the Hatas also says this about the Shula. I wanted such sources on ancient books such as the Mishnah 33 and Rambam.
According to what I have explained, such a phenomenon is found only in books that are canonical codifications (I hope I wrote that correctly) such as Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, and less so in interpretive books, where those who do not seem to be in favor of the issue will reject it because of another opinion that seems more correct, and there will be no need to reconcile the opinion that seems incorrect.
In any case, please open your mouth about it.