Don

Here is my “iron sharpens iron” attempt.

Jon 3:4  Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

is the verse I was referring to being truncated in some sense, as it does not mention any possibility of escape.  I agree God gave them an escape.  But if you look JUST at what was said, there is no escape potential mentioned, it is just a judgment.
—
On the sign of Jonah, no sign
Mat 12:39  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Mat 12:40  For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mar 8:11  The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.
Mar 8:12  And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Luk 11:29  When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
Luk 11:30  For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

The question is why does Mark not mention Jonah?  My solution when I got from Instone-Brewer is that Mark truncated.  If we JUST HAD MARK, we would know nothing about any sign of Jonah, so I am glad there are 4 gospels.  Truncation is invalid as an operator in Greek logic, as you lose information, but it is fine in Hebrew thinking, you are supposed to know it is possible.
——-
I agree on checking to see if the woman might be telling the truth, this is possible and is even what I want to be true. But just cuz I want something does not make it true, it remains a possibility.  Your argument that she could not simply be mistaken in what she said seems to me to be an “argument from personal incredulity” which is a weak form of argument.  It might convince some, but does not (yet) convince me.
—–

I did not say being deceived equals being mistaken, I said if one is deceived then they are mistaken, but one can be mistaken without being deceived.  Being deceived takes a deceiver.  But given that she was deceived it is not such a stretch to consider the possibility that she was also mistaken.