I am again pleasantly stuck in a passage of Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya’s learned commentary on the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra. This time he is discussing PMS 1.1.26, which is an important sūtra for philosophy of language, but one whose wordings was unclear even within Mīmāṃsā:

loke sanniyamāt prayogasannikarṣaḥ syāt

In an article (forthcoming on The Memoirs of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, 177, 2020) Kei Kataoka suggests therefore an emendation to the PMS itself.

Within the history of Mīmāṃsā, Sucarita also suggested an emendation and read the sūtra as follows:

loke sanniyamāt prayogaḥ sannikarṣaḥ syāt

Moreover, Sucarita explains the sūtra as follows:

This aphorism aims at showing the difference of the Vedas [from worldly texts], since some people think that the Vedas consist of a collection of words, and the collections of words are commonly seen to have been made by people, for instance, the ones regarding objects (artha) such as groups of blue lotuses, and that therefore also these (Vedic collection of words) have been authored.

padasaṅghātātmāno vedāḥ. padasaṅghātāś ca puruṣakṛtā dṛṣṭāḥ, yathā nīlotpalavanādyarthaviṣayāḥ. ata ete ’pi kṛtrimā iti. tadviśeṣapradarśanārthaṃ cedaṃ sūtram. (Kāśikā ad ŚV pratijñā 55 ad PMS 1.1.1).

Veṅkaṭanātha and Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya agree that this is not a suitable explanation, since it would be out of place. Moreover, says, Veṅkaṭanātha

And the insertion (niveśa) [of the aphorism] within that finality (i.e., showing the difference between ordinary and Vedic language) is not clear.

tādarthye niveśaś ca na spaṣṭaḥ. (SM ad PMS 1.1.26, 1971 p. 116)

The sentence is so short that it demands some explanation, and here follows Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya’s one:

And the insertion [of the aphorism] within that finality means ‘And [the aphorism would] be included in the reflection on that purpose (i.e., showing the difference between ordinary and Vedic language)’, through the postulation that they (general purpose and aphorism) are linked as result and thing leading to the result (phalin) [respectively] insofar as it (aphorism) supplements the principal purpose.

tādarthye niveśaś ceti. pradhānārthaśeṣatayā phalaphalibhāvakalpanayā tadarthavicārāntarbhāvaś cetyarthaḥ.
(SĀṬ ad SM ad PMS 1.1.26, 1971 p. 116)

(I am not completely sure about my understanding of the commentary. Suggestions are welcome!)

In short, Veṅkaṭanātha and Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya enter the debate with Mīmāṃsā authors on their very arena. The disagreement here does not regard a topic which would have a relevance for Vedānta, they just think Sucarita has not respected the sambandha requirement while interpreting the aphorism.