What is sad to see is the no one has attempted to define WHAT sola scriptoria is...all you are doing is talking past one another..
The sola scriptoria as seen in the article of the OP is NOT what sola scriptoria is nor what the reformers meant. The reformers did NOT throw away tradition, they did NOT throw away the writings of the early church fathers, they did NOT throw away creeds and early church councilor decisions such as Nicaea, Chalcedon etc....
In the early church basically scriptureis the same as the apostolic tradition and apostolic tradition is the same as scripture. In essence scripture is the apostolic teaching WRITTEN DOWN. It was the Regula Fide of the church. It is the faith/doctrines that the church has always believed.
Where Protestants and Roman Catholics (RCC) disagree id when the RCC says that there are unwritten traditions. That is where the disagreement lies. The RCC wants to hold the Christian conscience captive to what is unwriitten, what they say is tradition. Unfortunately for them there are many doctrines/dogmas that they hold to that we’re never propagated by the scriptures NOR the apostolic/early church fathers such as the Marian dogmas, papal primacy etc...
An again I challenge the Roman Catholics here to show me ONE doctrine that is necessary for salvation that is NOT found in scripture but comes to us from tradition alone!! And again I say if there is none then YOUR position is moot and sola scriptoria stands as a correct principle of the reformation.
Except that the Apostle John specifically teaches that "everything that Christ did was not written".
Your claim that EVERYTHING was written down is simply bogus. There were unwritten doctrines in the Old Testament. Assuming that there were and are none in the New is simply not justified.
I saw that somebody else posted to you. But sola scriptura means scripture alone.