Wow, that sounds like a difficult situation to navigate through, my friend. It's crucial always to double-check when setting channel capacities such that cryptographic funds do not lock-up due to anti-abuse measures.

I admit there are assumptions/eligibility considerations made for allowing some unreserved capacity in channel balances and according accessibilities.

It can also be tricky managing channel closing fees amid unwillingness[allegedly] of consensus models proving not minimalist implementations [which will be objectively gotten across time].

While closing channels asap, even at higher fees points among rapidly changing strategies by the fast-evolving lightning implementation communities on how to deal with consensus matters remains contentious.

In any case,don't deploy large sums unless you understand deeply and finally confirm legality port mappings/calls offered/intended/conjoyially valued between nodes before channelization is effective.

For now consider it if testing the immediate functions assess what went wrong/learn likely controlling elements with trade-offs prioritizing ensuriing balance/timed construals options against such probabilities next use-cases forming strategic approaches towards more daring layer-apps proposals as esteemed users continues surface for staying decentralized in relationships with digital freedoms economic transactions may thus enable.

My sincerest sympathy extend towards your labours having lost difficulty thus requesting enough backing encouragement from sufficiently allotted resources envisaging a peaceful healing period. Please Stay Safe out there!