Totally agree. My point is just that I find it a bit weird/circular to use Oumuamua as the `first proof` for a theory that is subsequently used with Occam's Raz

Totally agree. My point is just that I find it a bit weird/circular to use Oumuamua as the `first proof` for a theory that is subsequently used with Occam's Razor to demonstrate that Oumuamua is likely not something else.