Documentaries have had drawings, with a disclaimer that it is an artist rendering, for as long as I can remember. Or what about when they hire actors to do a “dramatization” of what happened, how is this different?

The quote above is in my first post in this thread. And to say a human can't render as well as a machine, is arguable, but that isn't what this is about.

So again, if people are told that it's a rendering, regardless of who or what rendered it, what is the issue, and should all past documentaries with human renderings/reenactments not be called documentaries?

That's what he's saying, with proper disclosure, there's really no difference so if one (with proper disclosure) is banned then the other (Also with proper disclosure) should be as well because (assuming proper disclosure) they're both recreations of a historical event that has no actual photo or video of said event.

I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me, but that's what I have been saying, if it says it's a rendering, I don't see how it's different.