Who says Ananias’ words were impeachable? You impeached Ananias when you wrote: "Acts 22:16 is an iffy procedure proposed by Ananias before Paul’s formulation of his own gospel as taught personally by the Lord Jesus Christ. Ananias’ words were not necessarily inspired words, although the history of him saying them is inspired and inerrant."
I only said that Ananias' words were not necessarily inspired, but the recording of Paul telling the story, as recorded by Luke
was/is inspired of God. For Ananias to say, "Thus sayeth the Lord, 'Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' " then I would agree that what Ananias said
could have been inspired of God. But the preliminary phase, "And now why tarriest thou . . ." shows that the thought arose out of Ananias' ruminations, was added to what was recorded that the Lord did say unto him, and hence need not be inspired of God, but only of his own urging, which would be only that encouragement to finishing the transaction of repent/commit trus/receive the Holy Ghost/be baptized into discipleship, chronologically speaking. Verbalizing that action is not an inspired prompting.
I'm not going to debate this any further with you.