Maybe this will help. It's not a double negative. It's two single negatives, not confirmed and inerrant (i.e., not errant). Thus, it is not "not not confirmed = confirmed" and "not not errant = errant" which combined would be "confirmed errant". It is instead "not confirmed not errant". Thus, since it is not confirmed, it could be not errant. You are so not logically (an extension of technically) saavy. If this still doesn't register, ask a logic expert you trust.
LOL. You are hysterical.
Perfectly lucid doublespeak.
My analysis stands. Anyone interested can compare your contortions to my analysis.
You know, admitting you are wrong is not that bad. Ask any former JW.
Evidence you cannot is provided below.
Doublespeak is your native language, to be sure. Do you speak English at all?
"not confirmed to be inerrant could still be inerrant"
Dropping out the double negative on one side of the equation leaves us with
'confirmed to be errant could still be inerrant'
You really seem rattled today.