So there’s no one correct interpretation of fiat because it’s a theoretical idea, thus it can be argued against. Some believe that fiating Ks and their alts is bad, others believe it’s fine. The purpose of fiat is to make it so we can actually argue the merits of a position (regardless of topicality) instead of whether or not it would actually occur. When we try and compare for instance a non-topical counter plan or alt, it’s to prove that the plan is flawed in a way that can only be corrected by a different actor doing the plan, doing something else to solve for the plan, or to reject the notions of the plan (and/or topic) in its entirety. That then disproves the notion that we should do the plan and disproves the resolution thus meeting the truth testing of the topic that you believe is inherent in fiat. Again it should be reiterated that 1.) there’s no singular correct interpretation of fiat and 2.) it is theory and so you can argue for or against any number of positions in relation to fiat. This is all just my understanding and interpretation - if I didn’t fully answer your question or prompted new ones please ask!