The original article said she was a “cousin” of the pope, it didn’t say “first cousin”, to be accurate. For many people the additional clarity in the the second interview in 2008 that she was a “second cousin”, specifying that her mother was the pope’s cousin, along with dates, locations, key childhood experiences, and mention of another living relative in Australia, might tend to corroborate - but you think it does the opposite?
As I already said, maybe we can’t prove it’s true (although your arguments against are looking increasingly desperate) but it’s certainly likely enough to be true to be relevant to the conversation, which is all I claimed. And the original statement you put out from ChatGPT and claimed to have verified is clearly false when you said: “There is no widely available documentation or media coverage to verify this story.” You’ve gone from arguing there was none, to arguing there was only one, to arguing you don’t believe any of the sources anyway - quite a distance, and somewhat “tedious”, to use your own word.