Sorry @CurlyCarl but I don’t really understand what you are talking about.
My “objection” to DN14 is around the insertion of the section beginning with “some time later” and ending with “meditating like this his mind was freed from defilements by not grasping” which is contradicted by the subsequent paragraph referring to “this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination.”
I also pointed out that the section I object to in the Pali is absent from the Chinese parallel.
You responded (to @Brahmali rather than to me) asking rhetorically if SN12.10 should be interpreted as describing the awakening, in response to which I have given multiple sutta examples where there is no ambiguity and DO is directly equated with awakening.
You then used the example of Kondanna to argue that DO was his stream entry and 5A was his awakening, although this does not directly bear on the Buddha’s experience. (I also seem to recall that there are other suttas that give differing accounts of the group of five’s awakenings)
I then replied pointing out a number of differing accounts in the suttas all giving different doctrinal formulae as synonymous with awakening, but pointing out that DO, 4NT and the drawback, gratification and escape formulae where by far the most common.
Now you seem to be saying that there is some subtle difference between the grasping aggregates and the aggregates simpliciter that has some bearing on the question of DN14’s coherence or corruption.
Perhaps you can rephrase what your saying so I can understand?
Metta.