[Galin]

(...) meaning that while it's probably safe to assume that an external ambiguity is unintended, the reverse isn't necessarily true: e.g. the two versions of The Elessar constitute an internal ambiguity in so far as they're presented as conflicting traditions within the secondary world, but does that mean the ambiguity is therefore intended? In other words, did the Prof leave the story ambiguous because he wanted it that way, or was he experimenting with two different stories on the spot and using the translator conceit to camouflage his own indecision?

OK, but regardless of that question, The Elessar presents a multi-version (internal) tale within the legendarium. If Tolkien isn't sure which story he likes, to me this approach is intended in any case, as JRRT can't be confused about the nature of the text he has produced, and can't not have considered the measure of ambiguity it introduces with respect to Secondary World building.

(The final note which has two Elessars and Celebrimbor as the smith of both seems to indicate the latter - apparently he had made up his mind [for the moment at least], therefore no more need for having two differing traditions.)

Tolkien appears to have later revised a detail concerning Galadriel in the 'Elessar-proper', and if done later than the end-note, this could indicate he might be 'back' to the first notion, or perhaps that he never really left, and that the end note only seems to be more certain because it's a very abbreviated summation.

In other words, Tolkien's note here might indicate that the Elessar text 'proper' was written so because he couldn't make up his mind at the point it was written... or it might just as easily represent Tolkien tossing out Enerdhil for Celebrimbor, and the seeming certainty of the fate of the first Elessar might be due to the brief nature of the note.

But *sticks out his neck* how much does it really matter? It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise?

I'm not one of the Translators from the Elvish, actually

Generally speaking, lack of distinction might gived a skewed picture of Tolkien as a World Builder. For example, I wonder how many websites out there present Tolkien's history of Galadriel and Celeborn as a jumbled set of contradictory texts, making no distinction between published and 'private', letter or essay, or even a hard to read note versus a finished and polished piece. If memory serves, sometimes all the distinction one reads is: 'in another version...'

If we are essentially sifting through drafts we are bound to find contradictions, and I say let's keep that in mind (seems only fair to Tolkien as an imaginative World-builder), and not further muddle the picture. To me, treating the Amroth contradictions as equivalent to what Tolkien was doing with the Elessar-stone (again no matter his motive to do it, he was fully aware of how it would play as part of the legendarium) is helping to muddle the picture a bit.

Not that it's a big deal necessarily... but it also gives me something to post

(and this all disregarding the fact that The Elessar itself is a rough draft text! but that's another matter)