Scripture is alone as the supreme standard, or rule of faith, but which does not mean it alone is to be used in understanding truth.
That scripture was the transcendent material standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims is abundantly evidenced, and which materially provided for additional writings being established as Scripture.
In contrast, the Catholic premise that being the inheritor of Divine promises of God’s presence, and preservation, and the steward of Divine revelation and under whom writings were established as Scripture and truth preserved, requires assured infallibility or renders that body to be so (unless you are God), is not what is seen in Scripture.
Again, if you disagree, say so.
Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture. So “scripture alone” again requires the qualifier of “according to whom”?
I don’t see how you can overcome this, there is no scripture alone without someone reading and saying what it means.
We also see the example in Holy Scripture of the Council of Jerusalem, concerning non-Jew converts, where the decision of the council was made with authority and without reference to scripture.
In case my first reply wasn’t clear, the point I’m making is:
You seem to be drawing a choice of Scripture or the Church (or Scripture alone vs the Church and Scripture.)
I’m saying that isn’t an accurate description of the two sides. It is the individual and Scripture vs. the Church and Scripture - since any recourse to scripture is recourse to an interpretation of Scripture.