You say that no state of validity can exist apart from the scientific proof of the invalidity of a statement, method, thesis, hypothesis or theory?
Did I understand that correctly?

Here I see a problem with this assertion:

What is a heart surgeon supposed to rely on, for example, if not on what are currently considered valid medical methods of performing a bypass?

Should he make all patients waiting for an operation wait for the next falsification of state of the art medicine?

Dynamic lift is the basic physical principle for the natural flight of birds and bats. It is also the basis for the function of aeroplane wings, propellers, ship propellers, sails, turbines ...
source

Would you say that as long as this principle is not falsified, its application is ... what? Nonsense? Dangerous? Because according to that logic, every scientific statement will be falsified at some point.

Of course, this is always the case when and what about it happens, and is therefore a correct statement. But it is not stopping applications in all of the meantimes, because it cannot be held back, since it's a case of trial and error, would you agree? Furthermore, there are things which do not undergo the process of falsification, would you agree?

So what are you doing in the in-between space/time? Until it comes to this point where something is disproved? You hardly can do nothing. So you do something, correct?

What would a theology professor say to a student about theology? What basics shall he name, if all what he is going to name, one day will be refuted?