There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.

Where does the article you linked it say this?

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

The registrar does say this though.

Literally the next lines.

In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

The copyright of the comic as a product is one thing, the copyright of the individual images is another.

I’m not accusing you of arguing in bad faith or intentionally spreading information, I’m letting you know that you’re repeating the talking points of those who do.

Well, I am letting you know you are at this point, clearly ignoring the videos, and articles, and even not reading the article you've linked. As the article you even linked states clearly.

The Copyright Office weighed in for the first time last month on whether its output is copyrightable, finding Midjourney-generated images in Kris Kashtanova's comic book "Zarya of the Dawn" could not be protected, though Kashtanova's text and unique arrangement of the book's elements could.

So you could go take the images out of the comic book and reuse them because they are not copyrighted.