Nope. Your first analogy was perfect for the situation.
I was careful in that analogy to use the word “spherical” rather than “sphere”, and to have the researchers claiming that the earth was flat - because what we need is a situation where the two claims are not nuanced versions of each other but flat opposites.
My point is that “nuances” don’t explain flat-out contradictions. Not-exactly-flat and Not-exactly spherical can be fudged around, as you amply illustrated. The numerical illustration involves direct opposites, which makes it more applicable to what we’ve got here.
The “experts” say that the President is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat orders. McInerney, Vallely, Fundamentally Fair, and 4 different references from the actual legally-binding documents - AND these experts themselves when it’s a case other than this one, such as the Iran scenario - all say that brigade commanders cannot issue lawful combat orders without the approval of the President, so the lawfulness is absolutely dependent on legal authorization from the President. (And even Lind’s ruling acknowledges that the President is relevant because she bothers to “note” that Obama is the President, which makes no sense for her to note if it’s irrelevant. What she wants to be irrelevant is whether Obama “acting as President” is contrary to the Constitution.)
Those are mutually exclusive claims. There is no wiggle room to come with mutually exclusive claims. Which makes the 2nd analogy more applicable.