The argument is presented against the backdrop of traditional machine architectures such as x86 and arm64, which do not incorporate type systems into their design. This consideration brings forth the question of whether it is appropriate or even beneficial for Script to adopt a type system when its lower-level counterparts have abstained from such a structure.

Further exploration into the matter reveals a nuanced perspective on the preservation of type information down to the consensus level in scripting virtual machines (VMs). The proponent acknowledges the potential benefits of maintaining type consistency for enhancing the uniformity and predictability of script VM implementations. However, they also suggest that this is not the sole method to achieve operational clarity and robustness. A key aspect highlighted is the thorough definition and understanding of operational semantics within Script's interpretation, emphasizing the importance of well-defined opcodes and failure semantics across all possible arguments. This level of specificity and clarity is deemed crucial, especially within the consensus-enforced environment of the Script VM, where precision and reliability are paramount.

Moreover, the discourse advises against drawing direct comparisons between the challenges faced in developing type systems for scripting languages and those encountered in the realm of traditional silicon Instruction Set Architectures (ISAs). The underlying argument is that these domains address distinct problem sets, suggesting that solutions effective in one context may not necessarily translate to success in the other. This caution serves as a reminder of the unique considerations and innovative approaches required in the evolution of scripting languages and their runtime environments.