The question was about nodes being able to do this dynamically, within these bounds arguing that checkpoints (which don't meaningfully exist in modern Bitcoin Core, they haven't been touched in 7 years) somehow fits the description is idiotic. This bottom-shelf, belligerent, and wholly incorrect argument is explicitly why I'm not interested in contributing to this Stack Exchange further.

It's literally part of the same paragraph, I quoted the part with the direct question of if it is possible or not, which it isn't. The checkpoint code doesn't do what you think it does.

this attack could be dealt with by a soft fork that disregards any block that the applicable miner did not publish within a certain amount of time after it was found The discussion is about consensus rules.

This answer is correct. You can not prove when a block was received, or when other transactions were received to any other participant on the network, so details like that can't be part of the consensus system. If nodes were to "penalize" blocks they received based on local observation the consensus system would fail. A node can make a guess that a block is new only if it contains a transaction they produced, as they have knowledge of when it was signed, which is completely meaningless.

Deriving an address like this can also result in loss of funds.

bitcoin.org is not involved in bitcoin transactions.