I'm not sure why that's supposed to help. The existence of an owner is not the question. The question is how to distinguish the owner from a crqc attacker. How does the proof tie to the later spending transaction and authenticate the owner as the legitimate spender?
I'm not sure why that's supposed to help. The existence of an owner is not the question. The question is how to distinguish the owner from a crqc attacker. How does the proof tie to the later spending transaction and authenticate the owner as the legitimate spender?