So.. What should I actually be doing?

[oshfdk]

Most, if not all solutions are demonstrably wrong. One way this happens if when the solution implies a one-way cipher, one that loses so much information that the original meaning is actually lost. In this (common) case, the proposed readings are by definition a fantasy.

Maybe there is a difference between "demonstrably" and "provably". Take any solution like "Voynichese is just a form of vernacular Basque using a mix of Latin and Georgian alphabets, heavily influenced by Arabic, EVA t is actually either m or n or b depending on context, sometimes it's also a null". Now, you can demonstrate that one can generate hundreds of solutions like this. However, it's almost impossible to prove that this particular solution is wrong. There is nothing anachronistic or geographically impossible in it.

From the point of view of the authors, of course, the limbo situation is correct. Which leads to a lot of the behaviors we see in Voynich solvers.

This is exactly the point of view that we have been discussing, what to expect if you wish to put forward your theory. Unless you want to remain in the limbo, you need to strengthen your case, and you need to be prepared to provide good arguments. Basically your attitude should be "a solution is only as good as other people believe it's good". The history has shown that a good theory can fool a lot of people, but a theory that no-one but the author accepts is unlikely to be mature enough. I think.