Sometimes in the Rabbinic literature traditions are related about what happened in history, with multiple different opinions. For example, there was a historical development in the script used by Israelites, from something like Phoenician, to the script that has been used by Jews for at least a couple of thousand years now. The issue for the Rabbis is whether the script in which the Torah is now written is the same as the one in which it was originally written, even though the current script seems to have evolved through a natural process that can be seen in inscriptions from the Temple periods.
The Rabbis had varying opinions about this. One view was that the Tablets and the five books were originally written in Paleo-Hebrew, and that sacred texts only began being written in the new Jewish script after the Babylonian exile (this seems close to the view of secular historians, which would be expected since it doesn't seem so miraculous). Another view is that they were originally written in the modern Jewish script, but that it fell out of use and then, in the time of Ezra, was reinstated for the copying of the scriptures. And a third view is that they were originally written in the new script and that even though the Israelite 'common' writing changed over time, the sacred texts have always been written in the same script.
Since these can't all be true, it seems that some of the traditions at least are speculations on what might, or must, have happened historically. So the questions I want to ask here are why historical speculations were allowed into the authoritative tradition, and how literally we should accept rabbinic traditions of historical details like this (even if there is a consensus view). I'd really value any insights into it because I have little experience with rabbinic texts and learning.