This article is the third in a series. The first established the conceptual partition of physics into three epistemically autonomous perspectives: observational, relational, and interpretative. Then demonstrated that confusion among them generates persistent problems. The second examined the limits of doubt and certainty, concluding that individual dogmas are inevitable for cognitively limited beings, but simultaneous collective dogmas can and should be avoided. The present article proposes a heuristic principle inspired by the Taoist concept of Yin-Yang to operationalize these conclusions within the domain of the interpretative perspective. The principle states that no scientific interpretation is perfectly complete; apparent perfection is a symptom of insufficient examination. As a quality metric, the Dialectical Robustness Index is proposed: the quantity of serious counterpoints that an interpretation has faced and overcome for fundamental reasons, rather than through dogmatic pressure or ad hoc protection. The article examines historical precedents. The Ionian philosophers and the Faraday-Maxwell relationship, and engages with Popper, Kuhn, Bachelard, and Einstein-Infeld. It concludes with implications for scientific practice and the preparation of the ground for a program of reexamining certain interpretative notions in current physics. 

This version only corrects the author's ORCID, which was incorrect in previous versions.