Is there a point to arguing whether a system is CCA secure if the 'formal definition' uses the system in an explicitly wrong way? Especially if there is a triv

Is there a point to arguing whether a system is CCA secure if the 'formal definition' uses the system in an explicitly wrong way? Especially if there is a trivial modification of the 'formal definition' that better matches the intention and allows for results that apply to reality? Of course there is the question of whether the modification is trivial, and whether the modification changes CCA meaningfully for other systems. But argue about that, whether a definition modification changes past results using that definition. Just stating 'that is not the formal definition' if the formal definition gets criticism and an alternative is suggested, is not really good-faith engagement with criticism.