I underline the points you are making (about invalidity), but have not quite got your underlying question in the starting post (nor can find any in your post ;-).
I can see different questions, such as: 1) what is the technically correct way/answer re objections in case of access request? 2) what do I do as (what role?) if someone is not willing to grant access even if the objections are not valid? 3) or: what to do when ego-driven behavior shows up and people don't play by the rules or try to outsmart the system by stubbornly staying with their perspective only.
If it is about further pathways to process that, you are not dependent on the valid/invalid objection question.
1) Outreach could think of using governance to withdraw the domain from that role, if outreach could provide real examples how this harms the circle. You could make it part of the circle and add a policy how access is constrained for example to integrate possibly occuring objections of communication role.
2) additionally, probably not the preferred option but still a pathway: if a role-filler continuously shows stubborn behavior pitch the lead link to check role-fit. If it is about people fighting the rules of the game a more in-depth coaching or conversation seems also helpful IMHO (by whatever role holds accountabilities for that).
Curious, what specifically is of interest to you.