Can a Figure discard something? [closed]

I have been criticized for the following usage of to discard:

Figure 7 shows [...]. It is striking to observe that [surprising fact]. However, [tempering the previous fact]. Thus, Figure 7 clearly discards the possibility that [impossible hypothesis].

The comment is "A figure does not discard, it can only visualise something".

It would be easy to reformulate (e.g. "From these observations, we can clearly discard"), but I wonder if this particular usage is correct or not, and if it sounds odd. In the last sentence, I understand "Figure 7" as a shortcut or metonymy of the whole associated reasoning.

It's clear that a simple diagram can't discard anything. Discard is a verb with a positive action: that of throwing something away.

A figure or diagram can have an effect, rather than a real action. It can cause you to do something:

Figure 7 clearly causes us to discard the possibility...

Or it might do something itself which doesn't have a real action, merely an effect:

Figure 7 clearly invalidates the possibility...

or you might possibly use show as that can be metaphorical — that is, if a diagram shows something it "causes us to see":

Figure 7 shows [impossible hypothesis] to be impossible.

Discard is not [yet!] metaphorical; although English does change, this particular verb still connotes the real action of disposing of something. I believe it's unlikely that discard will change its usage: OED shows it in use since 1578 and it's always connoted a positive action (including displace or banish).