The traditional argument is challenged on the ground that an existing referential pronoun and a clear context may already connect the nominal circumstance to its host. The mere possibility of an independent reading need not make wāw compulsory in every instance. In some patterns the clauses are tightly integrated semantically and omission can still be understood.
The disagreement is therefore not simply grammar versus irregularity. It turns on the proposed underlying syntax, the availability of different links, and the rhetorical suitability of the result.