Memory loss plan debunk, debunked!

I’ve never been one to seriously and properly format documents and to be honest I'd be much more comfortable in a video essay format, as those are thoroughly engaging and easier to track the substance of, imo. Regardless, I won't be properly formatting today, we’ll just run a critical analysis of “Samuel’ Alistair’,” analysis and go from there. I’m called -C- and now it's time for the rebuttal to the “debunk” as promised. To keep this easy to understand I am going to underline this gentleman’s central thesis, which runs something like this: >Light’s memory loss plan is riddled with the “luck of the gods”, unpredictability, and glaring logical gaps-relying on improbable events such as: 1. Who would end up with the death note, (Higuchi, or someone similar who’s reckless and easy to manipulate whoever Rem selected based on those parameters) 2. Creating a scenario (helicopter scene in canon) that not only conveniently allows Light to regain ownership of the Dn and his memory (through the watch trick), without L intervening. 3. Pretty much depends on Rem, L’s inaction and numerous coincidences to succeed. Samuel's conclusion is therefore that the plan is deeply flawed, depends on plot armour, and that Light could have chosen a simpler, safer alternative. They also argue that L should have logically confiscated the notebook or deduced Light’s watch trick. Now we’ll go into main criticisms and I’ll run basic counter replies. Paraphrasing the claim runs something like this …