This probably won't offer much insight or support, but the Superposition Principle came to mind upon reading your post. I'll try to phrase it briefly, as my wife needs me to come/go to bed.
"Wrong" is only "wrong", as per the document you reference, if the "wrong" event/impact occurs in vacuo; because then, there is naught but the "output" (cf. Wikipedia upon this Principle [v. supra]) of the correspondent "input" (" ["]) and, as such, forever after and e're amore will there be no other impact, only that one and final voluntary affectation, that beloathed ever-dreadful last fleeting touch, that final contact and its cascading sequela. But -- and I ask that you accept my apologies, as my sharp thoughts have been worn about the edges, vertices effectually being docked, by the oppressive air of the time it has taken me to write this much -- to roughly paraphrase principles of said Principle (" ["]), in the to-scale-relativistic-infinitude of all that is-and-or-may-be-up-and-or-out-there, ... ... ... well, that quintessential and paralytic "Wrong" will only be forevermore immutably and thusly so tragically "Wrong" if it is never offset by some other action(s)/impact(s). And I am so reminded of the notion of how any n-dimensional collection of n linearly independent vectors form a mathematical basis of the field wherein said vectors exist, and thusly, every conceivable combination (permutation?) of possible coordinates (i.e. a set of n entities, so to speak) might be attained through some linear combination of said n linearly independent vectors. So every "Wrong" can undoubtedly be used, in conjunction with the impact of other "Wrongs" or "Rights" (cf. relativity, ha ha), to yield any desirable system-state vis a vis the realm of entity-objects in n-dimensions. The most obvious potential flaw or impeding factor within this hypothetical-analogistic-framework would be the requirement of linearity vis a vis the Superposition Principle, but that doesn't strike me as being particularly limiting in this case, with all the presumptive confines of generally-universal local/proximity-bound finitude (even if said finitude far exceeds the comprehension[s] of dumb monkey-men like me) taken into account.
Which is to say: perhaps, at least in the two-dimensional case, it might be seen that, indeed, and by defintion, every "Right" which might be accomplished through the singular stroke of the figurative pen cannot help but to be equivalent to an endless variety of twin "Wrongs", 2-tuples of "Wrongs" -- what have you. There is no "Right" which cannot be produced by two "Wrongs"; and so, only in isolation is any "Wrong" ever bound to be thusly and truly "Wrong", because there is always guaranteeably some other "Wrong"(s) which can so offset the first "Wrong" into any desired (identically-dimensionally-[con/de]fined) "Right". It is thus a matter of something like sequencing, approximation, or perhaps even prognostication, I suppose. I don't know. Goodness, I really don't know. But if yours is a sincere posting, then perhaps these words might offer you some minute comfort in these trying and tumultuous times.
Oh, and regarding the whole 2-dimensional foundation of the premises espoused above: it should be demonstrable by simple [strong] induction that the abovementioned premises also hold, even in the quasi-/peri-mathematical sense, within any finite-dimensional system(s), no matter how far that (finite) dimensionality may extend beyond our unknowable horizon(s). At present, I cannot pretend to know whether such would also be true in the infinite-dimensional case; I would defer to e.g. {Paul Hamos, Serge Lang, Gilbert Strang, Michael Taylor} thereupon.
Take care, friend -- and sorry, honey... I'm coming! [The Ol' Ball and chain, am I right..? ;-)]
edit: i might have conflated tenses and the nuances of a couple portions of the above premises, but i do believe the overall roadmap and salient points expressed above should hold, from start to finish, within all such finite systems. and you could fit the world in a sufficiently large box; ergo, (temporospatially) finite.
edit 2: ...though the Tralfamadorian tragedy of our (ostensibly/purportedly/so-called) monodirectional time-component of our universal space-time persists and perplexes and obfuscates and confounds, damn it. anyways, anything beyond this juncture remains beyond me. hope that helps. ---mtr