>Isn't it obvious that Smith uses the sucked-out-of-thumbs claim (A) to "derive" claim (B) as a special case?

No, it is not obvious. If the general claim were so important, why then focus on the specific case?

>You simply refuse to address the text, focusing on your second-guessing instead. Besides, you're completely oblivious to Smith's opinions stated as facts, because in the above quotes, neither the general nor the specific claims are true. They're just "I say so".

Ha, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You're simply taking the popularized (and incorrect) interpretation and retroactively fitting it to the narrower original without paying any attention to the plain words on the page. When I first read WoN, I was shocked that the whole "invisible hand" thing was not only not the central theme of the book, it wasn't even the central theme of the chapter it appears in. WoN is not about deregulating industry, it's about creating the modern idea of industry in the first place. Smith never gets to the issue of how industry should be regulated, because he's preoccupied with advocating for the very idea of private industry in a world where, internationally, it's the exception.

> If the general claim were so important, why then focus on the specific case?

To make his poorly supported claims look more believable, I've explained that in detail already.

> the whole "invisible hand" thing was not only not the central theme of the book, it wasn't even the central theme of the chapter it appears in.

It's a profusely and clearly expressed claim even without being the central theme. Indeed, why should it be? Besides, what's the central theme? It doesn't seem to be anything related to science.

> Smith never gets to the issue of how industry should be regulated,

His preference for the "invisible hand" and his distaste for regulation are plainly visible, we talked about that too. However, if he wrote these as some sort of passing remarks, he clearly missed the central role of regulation in the economy, without that, it's "economics" without science. Using the invisible hand to sweep the issue under the carpet creates only confusion.

> because he's preoccupied with advocating for the very idea of private industry

Calling his writings "advocacy" is indeed the correct approach. Very far from anything approaching science though.