In the discussion over Thuc clergy validity, there is a lot of equivocation that goes on.  I think when most people say 'Thuc clergy' they have in mind only a very small subset of Thuc clergy: really, just the lines that proceed from Carmona and Guerard des Lauriers-- since, after all, the majority of 'respectable' traditionalist clergy in the US who have Thuc orders have their orders through those two men (all 'Thuc orders' from the CMRI, SGG, and MHT can be traced to those two consecrations quite easily and discretely).  And the fact of their consecrations is just indisputable, as is the fact of the consecrations those men then later carried out.
.
Now, if by 'Thuc clergy,' one has in mind some obscure cleric whose orders go through three or four Palmarian schismatics, involve various figures who doubted the orders they received at some point in that line, are poorly docuмented if not docuмented at all (ahem, Neal Webster), then I would of course agree.  In fact, I don't even think we need a proper 'decision' from (restored) Rome on those orders because typically the men who claim to have such orders are of very poor judgment anyways, and are unfit to even act as a vagus.  But again, the average traditionalist's interaction with those Thuc clergy is marginal.  Few people are put in situations where they have to make decisions about such clergy, and it really isn't that big of practical deal.