TL;DR: scholarship is essential, as long as (and only if) it is well-informed.
You say "See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules?"
When I read your article I noted a lack of breadth of scholarship.
The (famous) scholar Je Tsongkhapa wrote extensively about this apparent discrepancy in great depth, in his 15th Century opus, the Lam Rim Chenmo. Tibetan scholars have been continually and actively debating the nuances around his arguments for the last six centuries (as the subject is a part of the Geshe studies training).
You are aware of some part of the Madhyamaka tradition, which Tsongkhapa relies upon for this. As you must know then, following the MMK 24:18,
Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.
Therefore, according to the Madhyamaka, emptiness and paṭicca-samuppāda correlate. (I recommend both the Lam Rim translation committee and Jay Garfield's text on the MMK for further clarification).
In another of his works (three principle aspects of the path), he points out that if karma, interdependence and emptiness appear to conflict in our mind, then we can conclude that our views of emptiness and of karma are faulty.
You have yet to realise the thought of Buddha
As long as the two ideas seem to you disparate:
The appearance of things - infallible dependant arising;
And emptiness – beyond taking any position.
At some point they come together and no longer alternate
Just seeing that dependant arising never fails
Brings realisation that destroys how you hold onto objects
And then your analysis with view is complete.
In addition the appearance prevents the extreme of existence
Emptiness: the extreme of non-existence, and if..
You see how emptiness shows in cause and effect
You'll never be defeated by wrong views.
This gives us one of his tests for correct view:
The view of karma is correct when it strengthens one's understanding of emptiness, and at the same time the correct understanding of emptiness strengthens one's understanding of karma. If this is not the case, then the view of one (or both) is mistaken.
The way you describe the solution for this in the Madhyamaka is not correct - it is how some academics described it, within the Gelug - but this isn't a Madhyamaka solution - as you point out, it's an Abhidharma mechanism. Madhyamaka isn't big on metaphysics, for good reason.
I cannot continue at length here - life intervenes. However, there is no contradiction or mistake between karma, emptiness, or paṭicca-samuppāda unless you hold onto mistaken view, in which case they definitely appear to be contradictory - and this is not a new thing - it's been discussed by scholars since at least the 4thC CE.
If one wishes to contribute to the scholarship encompassed by "Buddhism", one must learn - at minimum, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese. Then one must study a lot of texts, interacting with living scholars of these traditions.
Again, it's important to recognise the scope of your investigation: If you wish to examine the mechanism of karma, for instance, you must start by differentiating the views held by many different traditions. Even within Tibet (that which I know most - but still not much - about) the mechanism of karma is described many different ways according to the tradition and the textual lineage. When it comes to the details and nuances, it's even harder: Even the different colleges within the universities (eg Gomang/Loseling/Deyang/Shagkor etc of Drepung) each have different interpretations and, within those interpretations, there are the textbooks and commentaries which are updated and revised and edited every decade or so – since the 12th century.
Buddhism is so rich with scholarship of its own that western scholars don't really know how to start addressing it: It's easy enough to find professors of Buddhist studies that mingle source texts from different colleges, universities, schools, traditions, and cultures - but such 'scholarship' is generally bereft of significant value. Peer review falls short because the maturity of Buddhist studies is so incredibly poor that peers can get away with anything. (Some areas, admittedly, are better than others - it might be that some Pali scholarship is pretty good, but I know nothing about that). Likewise, peer review really only 'works' for maths and the sciences, but that's another story.
So, in the end, the question reminds me of the apocryphal story of the journalist and Mahatma Gandhi:
J: What do you think of Western civilisation?
G: I think it would be a good idea.