If I understand it correctly, what you are saying here is that Narayana Maharaja is the senior most guru today and that his realized opinion should take precedence over that of others. Indeed if others disregard his opinion this is tantamount to buying into the ritvik philosophy because those who disregard his opinion are disregarding the living guru and merely accepting the opinions of previous gurus who are no longer present.
This is not a good argument. First of all there is no definitive way to prove that Narayana Maharaja is the most advanced gurus on earth. This is merely your subjective opinion. And there is nothing ritvik about accepting one’s own guru’s opinion on the topic when it differs from NM’s opinion, especially when NM’s opinion differs from the opinion of the gurus of one’s own guru who also happen to be the the gurus of Narayana Maharaja. In other words NM says that Sridhara Maharaja. Puri Maharaja, and Bon Maharaja, all disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, are his siksa gurus. They have told us that Prabhupada is in sakhya rasa and so has Prabhupada himself as the book demonstrates. So the real question is why does NM not follow the senior gurus?
As a side note, remember also that there are living gurus outside of the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta who also say that Prabhupada is in sakhya rasa.
The evidence presented is objective and the conclusion that Prabhupda is in sakhya is reached by accepting the evidence as it is, the direct meaning. If you insist upon interpreting it subjectively to get a different, indirect meaning out of it, you can of course try to do so. But all you are saying is that a guru whom you consider to be perfectly realized and who is among us today has a different opinion from what the evidence directly indicates. But as far as I am aware, neither he nor you nor any of his followers have demonstrated how an indirect interpretation of the evidence is more feasible and furthermore why your choice of guru on this matter contradicts the opinions of his own siksa gurus, one of whom is Prabhupada himself.
If you want to take the alternate suggestion of Sridhara Maharaja’s “maybe” as definitive, you must demonstrate its plausibility in relation to the wealth of evidence in the book that supports Sridhara Maharaja’s personal opinion. Without doing this it will be hard to convince objective readers, and much less so if you merely accuse them of having an agenda, being ritviks, lacking realization, etc.