Is the jurisprudential maxim "If the cause ceases, the ruling ceases" sound and applicable to any ruling, no matter the cause of its prohibition?

The jurisprudential rule, "The ruling revolves with its illah (effective cause) in existence and non-existence," applies if the illah is complete and definitive, meaning it is an illah whose presence necessitates the existence of the ma'lul (effect) and whose existence does not depend on anything else.

If a complete illah is known through a sacred text, the ruling revolves with it in existence and non-existence. However, if it is not complete, or not known through a sacred text, the ruling may remain even in its absence.

If the illah ceases to exist, the ruling associated with it also ceases to exist. Nevertheless, a similar ruling may exist due to another illah. If a ruling exists without another illah, this indicates that the illah had no effect and is invalid.

"Forbidden li-dhatihi (in itself) and disliked li-dhatihi" refers to that whose prohibition and dislike are not due to an illah with which it revolves in existence and non-existence, such as the prohibition of zina (fornication/adultery) and drinking alcohol. As for "forbidden li-'arid (due to an external factor) and disliked li-'arid," this refers to that whose prohibition and dislike are due to an illah with which it revolves in existence and non-existence, such as performing wudu' (ablution) with usurped water.