So the אחרונים don't see it like you, and you say their position is highly unlikely?
You say this as a plural, yet that word would be more appropriate to use for all of the achronim who are disagreeing with the Taz. (Including the חכמת אדם)
לסיכום הענין, I don't have a problem using the אחרונים understanding of the Ta"z as a tzad in a safek derabanan. If you disagree and hold there is no מקום to use the Ta"z
We don’t need to use the Taz, there are other achronim that are explicitly meikal.
See שו״ת משאת משה סימן towards the beginning, (gimmel or daled, somewhere there. About grape leaves).
So it is definitely a valid tzad lhalacha. I was just pointing out that the original swinging at someone for being machmir on this (who I don’t even know said lhalacha to be machmir), is kind of out of place.
I respect your opinion as well. You seem to be an erudite ת"ח
Thank you, וכן למר.