Keep in mind that {lo’laH} can’t take {-laH} as a suffix WHILE BEING USED AFTER A NOUN, ADJECTIVALLY for the same reason {lo’} can’t take {-laH} while it’s being used adjectivally, which is the boo-boo Okrand made which created the verb root {lo’laH} in the first place.

The word lo'laH be valuable appears in the first edition of TKD (published 1985), but is not used in a sentence until TKW in 1996: leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye. It is used only one more time, in KGT in 1997: lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur worthless as an empty torpedo tube. In neither case is it used to modify a noun.

Bearing that in mind, where do you get the story that he created lo'laH as a retrofit for an error? And when has it been proven that you can't use -laH on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name