Apparently not.Shall we call it a day?
How?You are wrong
To quote SLL in full, but with my emphasis:
If neither rifle is changed, their comparative combat effectiveness remains the same.The fact is that the AK series now suffers severe deficiencies in terms of ergonomics and mounting options compared to the AR series. That is a fact and it is one that reduces the combat effectiveness of the AK series compared to the AR series.
"now suffers"implies that it used not to suffer such severe deficiencies (though it may have suffered some).
There are two ways in which the combat effectiveness of the AK series may be reduced compared to the AR series.
One is that the AK series has actually introduced modifications which lower its absolute combat effectiveness, while the AR remains unchanged. Is that what you mean?
The other is that any improvements (including zero improvements) made to the AK are more than matched by improvements to the AR. In these cases the fact that the AK "now suffers severe deficiencies" with "reduced combat effectiveness compared to the AR series" is due to improvements in the AR, isn't it?
The only way I can see is that an unchanged AR may be capable of accepting for example, improved 'add-on' sighting attachments, while the AK is not, but that you do not count such improved attachments as improvements to the AR? Is that what you mean?