Denying comprehension at every time or in every case and denying absolutely every kind of apprehension are not identical logical claims. A general negation requires examining whether the negative predicate applies to every case or whether the universal scope of the predicate itself is denied.
The distinction matters because one reading of the verse denies comprehensive encompassing rather than all vision without qualification. The reply must still be evaluated through grammar, context, and the meaning of idrāk; logical terminology alone cannot substitute for interpreting the verse.