קסת הספר ס"ח לשכה"ס סק"ד

Shalom to all and a "Gut Moed".

In this לשכה"ס the קסת opens with the question of the גט פשוט that the סמ"ק seemed to have contradicted himself. On the one hand the סמ"ק holds that if a droplet of ink falls on a completed letter it is permissible to erase it. On the other hand סמ"ק writes the if one wrote a HEI instead of a DALED one may not merely scrape away the left leg to make it a DALED.

The קסת then writes עיין שם (בג"פ) מה שתירץ. ולפע"ד י"ל עוד דשאני התם שנעשה אות אחרת משא"כ הכא. 

I am confused by this. The Get Poshut wrote that the Sma"k distinguishes between if the droplet fell on its own or if the Sofer caused the problem by hand (intentionally). According to this, even if the droplet caused one letter to turn into another it is permissible to scrape it since it happened via a droplet i.e. unintentionally.

On the other hand, R' Akiva Eiger resolves the apparent contradiction that Sma"k distinguishes between if the letter simply lost its tzura or if it transformed into another tzura. In the former case the Smak is mattir. In the latter case the Smak is not mattir - even if it took place unintentionally. 

In other words there is a clear Nafka Mina between the two approaches in a case in which a droplet caused a letter to change into another. According to Get Poshut the Smak is mattir to remove the droplet. According to R' Akiva Eiger the Smak prohibits it.

So, when I look at this Keses I'm confused. How did the Keses learn. Both? They seem to me to be two variant approaches to resolving the contradiction in the Smak with a very concrete Nafka Mina. How could they both be conflated?