Does a decision win, fully avenge / counteract / compensate for a stoppage loss in your opinion?

Yes, and boxing is a 'COMBAT' sport. And the ultimate objective in a combat sport, is to inflict the greater damage upon the opponent, whilst abiding by the rules of that combat sport. Anything / everything else, is merely a means to an end, which is to fulfill that primary objective in boxing.

Based on that premise, the combatant inflicting the greater damage proves to be the superior combatant. And the most destructive feat in boxing, is a knockout whilst the second-most destructive feat is a knockdown.

You're attacking a straw-man by telling me boxing is not a tough man contest (when I never claimed it was). But it is (like any other hand to hand combat sport), a destructive sport, primarily based on causing greater destruction to the opponent than vice versa.

So as long as boxing continues to remain a 'COMBAT SPORT', the more destructive victories are going to remain better and more impressive to me than less destructive victories.

So as it stands, Eleider Alvarez still appeared to have inflicted much more damage in those 19 rounds of facing each other and it still remains 1-1. So a rematch is indeed needed to fully confirm who the superior boxer is! We can't rule out the possibility of Alvarez, potentially dropping and stopping Kovalev again in the third bout via making some adjustments.