You are welcome.

Despite believing that the accusations made against Socrates are unfounded.

I go along with Hegel who found them partly founded. He picked up this aspect by saying:

To the more definite accusation that he leads the sons to disobey their parents, Socrates now replies by asking whether in the choice for public office, e.g. of military commanders, the parents are preferred and not rather those who are skilled in the art of war?
Thus in all matters those most skilful in an art or science are preferred.

Is it then not to be wondered at that he should be brought to trial for this, because he is preferred by the sons to the parents in regard to the attainment of that which is the highest good for man, i.e. to be brought up to be a noble man?

This answer is correct on one level, but we see that here too we cannot call Socrates' answer exhaustive, for the actual, essential point of the accusation is not touched upon.
What we see his judges finding (as his) injustice is this moral intrusuion by a third party in the absolute relationship between parents and children.

In general, not much can be said about this; for it all depends on the nature of this intrusion.

This intrusion is necessary in individual cases; on the whole it does not have to take place, least of all if [an] accidental private person allows himself to do so.

I agree on the statement that "on the whole it does not to have to take place".

But since it did take place, we see us nowadays in a postmodern lack of actual beliefs which is central to Discordianism. Where the things which were up, are down - and the things which were down, are up.