See this is easily resolved. It is very much a part of traditional intellectual culture to disagree (where applicable) even with pūrvācāryas. It becomes obvious in the case of material observations and not so obvious in alaukika matters. Also this is not without precedent again https://twitter.com/entropied/status/1381254617695051776

We have the famous case of Sri Appayya Dikshita vs. Sri Narayana Bhattatiri. The former asserted based on pure Vedic testimony to assert geo-centrism while the latter defeated that proposition and firmly established a heliocentric view. (Of course one can shift the frame)

What my point is that there was always a healthy culture of debate, retraction, modification. The entire school of Navya Nyaya had to build things from scratch (well so to speak) to address the refutations of Advaitins. There’s nothing weird about it.

What is weird is to defend a guru’s work using odd arguments like, “He is enlightened he knows something you don’t.” Or “He does ground work so excuse it.”
Such logics are an obstacle in acquiring knowledge. Also there are very formal rules of logic and debate.

If say a Guru made a false premise and built a theory around it, the failure of the premise does cause damage to the theory.
If he states something wrong as a part of a defence, only that part needs to be ignored, there can always be certain gaps or incorrect analogies.