Kind of splitting hairs, aren't you? And I was just trying to understand, not play word games. So a passenger who has opted out of WBI for medical reasons (unable to assume and hold the position) who has a dressing on a wound that shouldn't be handled harshly can realize there's no way to satisfy screening requirements (remember, I said in my original post someone who had to medically opt-out of WBI - a wheelchair pax, for instance). So passenger realizes the only way to satisfy screening requirements (drum roll, please: for the safety of all!) without undue pain and/or risk of infection. Passenger says 'no'.

So the part you didn't answer before (and I asked in good faith, I feel that you replied in a misleading manner) was that after I say 'no', you summon LEOs to process me out of the area since there's no viable way to complete the screening process.

I get all that. In your earlier answer, heavily padded with TSA fluff (where did I say I doubted your mission or the importance thereof), you said that ultimately someone may effectively say 'no' - as with someone who has a surgical dressing and can't assume and hold the WBI position. Other TSOs have acknowledged that 'bulk' has to be resolved. The underwear bomber's 'bulk' is the justification for cupping and squeezing balls. Surgical dressings can be soft and bulky, obviously capable of concealing something.

And it isn't a 'what if' just for grins. I have flown in a situation like this (post-surgery, couldn't raise arm, heavy bandages and a drain that needed to be kept in place).

And it's no shame to say "I don't know, they haven't told us". Not on this board, anyway. It should be at the checkpoint.