This thread is on फलश्रुति and why the फलश्रुति of युद्धकाण्ड doesn't symbolise the end of the Ramayana.

(1/n)

Reason 1

On the basis of Uttarkhanda, both pre-chapter and UT considers as most important and since the pre-chapter is the largest, hence Phalshruti's statement at the end of the pre-chapter of Uttarakanda is not considered as inappropriate.

(2/n)

Reason 2

If फलश्रुति is the sign of completion of scripture, then at the end of the one first chapter there is फलश्रुति. In such situation, should we believe that only first sarga is Ramayana & rest are interpolated. But isn't it inconsistent to think like that?

(3/n)

Reason 3

Now, according to @theskindoctor13 's फलश्रुति theory, should it be assumed that the Gita is of 15 chapters only and the last 3 chapters are interpolated?

(4/n)

Reason 4

There are फलश्रुति at many places in ShrimadBhagwat also, but it doesn't conclude that the contents after फलश्रुति are interpolated.

(5/n)

Reason 5

"रामायणमिदं कृत्स्नं"– In this, the "कृत्स्नं" word has been referred to entire earlier Kaand. This should be understood.

(6/n)

It is said in the Brahmana-Part of Veda itself -

“पूर्णाहुत्या सर्वान्‌ कामानाप्नोति"

If we can get all the work from "पूर्णाहुति" only, then can we assume that same fruits of "अश्वमेंघ" , "राजसूय" etc yajna can be found in the "पूर्णाहुति" ?

(7/n)

In fact, this meaning is not coherent. There, one should understand the use of the word 'सर्व-काम' in the reference of "Prakrit Yajna".

In the same way, the word “कृत्स्नं” also means in the ending of previous Kanda, not Ramayana.

(8/n)