What do you mean you don't refute it? It's literally said that all that was just something symbolic created by Shaka and Shijima, it's mentioned twice, that something symbolic that represents the destruction of the Universe and creation, seeing something symbolic doesn't prove that it's real, but rather that they can see a kind of illusion created by them to represent the creation and destruction of the Universe
The work doesn't indicate that they can create something like that, Shaka doesn't have the potential to climb with that, that's something symbolic, I don't see why he's low 2-C based on that, but I'll make a crt to change that somehow.
If Superman represents and is the symbol of hope, is the destruction he does also symbolism?
I'm not disputing the attacks themselves represent concepts, however, that doesn't mean the destruction caused by the clash was also symbolic.
There's 0 evidence it was an illusion.
The character who described what he saw did not indicate it was an illusion, this character has identified illusions in the past and did not mention this was an illusion.
Shaka is low 2-C for reasons primarily relating to the 7th sense, I plan on changing it myself in my next CRT.
However, now you've convinced me he is 2-B, so now I have to reevaluate the tier 4 scaling I was going to give him, maybe he needs a new key for post-wailing wall, as he is clearly far far stronger now than he was in Classic.
If there's no evidence of that, then it's hyperbole
The evidence is the statement itself and the characters describing what is happening.
The panel choosing to focus on Ikki instead of the environment isn't an anti-feat. Extrapolating your logic means we cannot scale novels as there's no proof that anything being described to us is happening.
You're making the claim it is hyperbole, you have to prove it is hyperbole, I know you can't because such evidence doesn't exist.