Sure, and that's exactly what the OP did, but the point of the part of the thread you were quoting was not about the general handling of malware but the specific issue of how to fix the repeated false positives that DJI's executables seem to be generating. Knowing how to handle a piece of malware when detected or how to identify and whitelist a FP, is not the same thing as having a resonable expectation that something that isn't malware doesn't regularly FP in the first place.
Sarcastic figure of speech. I think we both know the chances of two different executables with the same name having the same SHA256 sum are pretty much zero, even before you take into account both posters stated it was DJI's assistant.exe v2.0.6.
Again, misses the whole point about fixing the underlying problem (see above). Yes, you're going to get the occassional SNAFU that can be fixed with a whitelist, but you really shouldn't have to do that with multiple release versions of the same executable.
PS. If you hit reply to multiple posts, you can address multiple comments in a single post.