For most hadith critics, a mursal chain alone does not establish continuity or the report's independent probative force because an omitted narrator remains unidentified. That is a judgment about this chain; the report's content might be established by other reliable routes.
Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfa are associated with accepting mursal reports under relevant qualifications concerning narrators and evidence. Al-Shāfi‘ī's approach places particular weight on corroboration through a separate route, Companion practice, or another suitable supporting indication.
Two issues must therefore remain separate: the formal interruption of a particular chain and the probative value gained from corroborating evidence. The dispute is more nuanced than unqualified acceptance versus unqualified rejection.