All you're actually doing is padding around the same old two-and-fourpence arguments. You assert that some evidence is "more than circumstantial." Well that's news to me. Which bits then? So states guard their secrets very very carefully, do they? So what's the point of all those spies then, and how come it's known that Novichok has been manufactured in Iran? That latter fact alone means that the cat's well and truly out of the bag. You say that circumstantial evidence can add to a case. Of course, but it can't stand alone. There has to be a case to begin with that's based on something a bit more solid than mere suspicion of a state that you hate already. Your logical analysis may follow the rules of logic on the face of it but if the premises on which your analysis is predicated are assumptions that you can't confirm then the whole edifice collapses. In other words, you've contrived an involved and intricate argument that has added precisely nothing new.