Question

Following up on your remarks in the article and in a lecture I heard, I came across a letter from the Chazon Ish to Rabbi Eliezer Peltzinsky concerning the laws of eruvin (a suspended partition and related issues), about the interpretation of Rashi’s words in Eruvin 16b, s.v. “a suspended partition.”
After a fundamental debate between the above rabbis about the laws of a suspended partition, Rabbi Peltzinsky cited the wording of that Rashi, whose meaning supports his position, and the Chazon Ish wrote about this (quoted in Chiddushei Chazon Ish on the page, Eruvin 16b, s.v. “what his honor wrote”), as follows: “As for what his honored Torah scholarship wrote, that it is against the plain meaning of Rashi—indeed, according to your honor’s view, that it is possible to explain… then that is the straightforward flow of the plain meaning. But if we say… then there is no departure here from the plain meaning of Rashi.” End quote.
In simple language: “You think it is possible to say such a line of reasoning, so you read Rashi that way; but I think the plain meaning is otherwise, so I read Rashi differently.”
And the Chazon Ish’s approach to plain-sense interpretation is very close to what you said (especially since there the Chazon Ish completely bends Rashi’s words, and afterward retracts and says that it cannot be explained that way).
There is an interpretive tendency that places precision of language on a lower level than the plausibility of the reasoning.
It is worth looking at the Chazon Ish’s letter in the newly reissued book Shalom Yehuda, and after it there is a collection of the letters in their original form.
In HebrewBooks I found a different wording from the old edition:
 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20631&st=&pgnum=101
With joy and happiness,
Reuven