I’m not saying that the fact that Catholic Bibles agree with the NWT on Zechariah 12:10 proves that their translation is correct. What I am saying is that it renders your argument that the NWT is an illegitimate translation motivated by Arian bias invalid. Because if that were the case why do so many scholars, including Catholic scholars come to the same conclusion as the NWT? Are they motivated by Arian bias?
My own opinion on Zechariah 12:10 is that either translation seems plausible, and that neither translation offers any support for the later Trinity doctrine anyway.
You seem very attached to the Hebrew of Zechariah 12:10 but my understanding is that the Catholic Church is not so big on inerrancy of the Hebrew over say the LXX, as Protestants may be. Catholics are much more comfortable than Protestants with the idea that the trinity developed in the church after the Bible was completed. They don’t face the same challenge as Protestants in trying to squeeze the trinity into the Bible text to the same extent.
It’s noticeable that it is stridently protestant versions of the Bible that tend to translate Zechariah 12:10 in what they perceive to be a Trinitarian manner. That makes sense because they view the Hebrew as inerrant and they try to rely on scripture alone to uphold their doctrine.
Even if the text of Zechariah 12:10 should read “to me”, I think the Watchtower from the 50s already presented a knock out argument about what that phrase would mean if that is the correct reading.
As far as literal piercing is concerned, this occurred in the case of Christ Jesus, and at John 19:37 the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 is quoted and applied to Jesus: “They will look upon the one whom they pierced.” (NW) They did not literally pierce God, who was in heaven and to whom Jesus spoke when he was on the torture stake. (Matt. 27:46; Luke 23:46) God could not die, and then resurrect himself. (Ps. 90:2) Yet inasmuch as Jesus Christ was Jehovah’s representative who became “the exact representation of his very being”, in piercing Jesus they could be said to be piercing Jehovah. (Heb. 1:3, NW) When sending out his followers to preach Jesus said: “He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.” (Matt. 10:40, NW) This shows that in receiving Jesus we receive Jehovah who sent him. In like manner, to pierce Jesus is to pierce Jehovah who sent him. It does not prove Jesus and Jehovah are one, any more than it proves Jesus and his followers are literally one. In another case Jehovah showed that to reject his representative is to reject Him. When Samuel was Jehovah’s appointed judge over Israel the people came requesting a king instead of a judge. Samuel was displeased when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” But Jehovah told Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7, AS) In rejecting Jehovah’s representative they rejected Jehovah, in effect; but this did not make Samuel one with Jehovah in a trinity.
As for your reliance on AI, it’s just tedious and boring because it presents a lot of plausible looking text, but with significant errors and poor logic.