A text may directly address a ruling through ʿibārat al-naṣṣ and also yield a related consequence through ishārat al-naṣṣ. Calling both “present in the words” without identifying the mode of indication conceals a crucial analytical difference.
First determine what the discourse principally sets out to establish. Then ask whether its wording necessarily indicates another meaning not principally foregrounded. This second route is not an invitation to free analogy or preferred outcomes.
Error: Labelling a distant conceivable consequence as textual indication. Correction: Demonstrate exactly how the expression’s structure yields that consequential meaning.