Nothing that I say will convince you - you are so entrenched that you are correct that it's worthless arguing.
But before I give it one more go, to say "don't show so openly that you didn't understand what I wrote" you have some gall.
To have previously accused me of making an error twice, for me to show that YOU are wrong, and then for you not to "deny them" (go back to our first meeting), and then accuse me of misconceptions ... wow. Just, wow.
Anyhow. One more go.
Bryan Garner: nominalizations: “verbs that have been changed into nouns.”
Verb: to comb.
Noun: a comb.
Nominalisation: comb.
US Government (PlainLanguage.gov) "A hidden verb is a verb converted into a noun. It often needs an extra verb to make sense"
Sentence: He quickly dragged a comb through his hair
Sentence without noun: He quickly dragged through his hair
Does it make sense? No.
Do we need the noun for the sentence to make sense? Yes.
Can the noun be converted into a verb (is it a hidden verb)? Yes.
If the noun was converted into a verb, would it make sense?
Sentence: He quickly combed (through) his hair.
Does the verb carry the meaning of the sentence? Yes.
Therefore does the original noun really convey the meaning of the sentence? Yes
Does "The noun 'comb' ... represent the activity of combing"? Yes.
Is it a nominalisation? Yes.
I can't be clearer. I can't.
One of the greatest (legal and other) analysts of the English Language and the US government.
I'm still waiting on that dictionary definition ....