Part of the point of steelmanning, as I understand it, is to see whether there is a bit that can't be salvaged. If you correct the unnecessary flaws and find that the strengthened argument is actually correct (and, ostensibly, change your mind), it seems appropriate to still call that process steelmanning. Or rather, even if it's not appropriate, people seem to keep using it like that anyway.

If you take a position on virtually any issue that's controversial or interesting, there will be weaknesses to your position. Actual weaknesses. I thought the purpose of steelmanning was to find and acknowledge those weaknesses, not merely give the appearance of acknowledging weaknesses. If that's not right, then I think we need a new word for the latter concept because that one seems more useful and truth seeking. If you're stretching things beyond the domains of validity and using tricks, it sounds awfully like you're setting up straw men, at the very least in your own mind. Seems more debate club than rationality.

A much better phrasing of what I was thinking.

But I think Kaj approach has some merit as well - we should find a name for "extracting the best we can from opposing arguments".