-Purpose of referencing my books is to make clear that I come to the issue with genuine sympathy for both sides, and no axe to grind-- as well as a three-decade record of looking at the topic.
With that in mind, here is my analysis:
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
That is true for archeology: Inconclusive data doesn't mean a mandir was (or wasn't) torn down.
That is true for history: Non-mention by Tulsi Das doesn't mean it didn't (or did) happen.
Here's what we can say:
Bottom line: Neither side can prove its case with scientific evidence-- there is data on both sides, but nothing conclusive.
It ultimately comes down to what each side believes-- or WANTS to believe.
Just like it has for centuries.