I heard Rav Schachter himself speak on the topic. Here’s how it breaks down:
PRO-TECHEILES: Because of the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex (I definitely spelled that wrong) is the chilazon, we should use it as techeiles.
ANTI-TECHEILES: Despite the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex is the chilazon, we should NOT wear techeiles because we don’t have the mesorah for it.
>NOTE: Those who are anti-techeiles don’t think (necessarily) that the tunculus murinex is not techeiles, they think it just doesn’t matter, because if you lose the mesorah for something, you can’t reinstate (obviously, referring to before mashiach comes). It would be ridiculous to suggest that those who are anti-techeiles say the reason that you shouldn’t wear techeiles is because were not sure if its the chilazon. If theres EVEN A LITTLE BIT of evidence pointing to that fact, we say SAFEK DI’ORAISAH LACHUMRAH and we would wear it anyway. The debate is whether you can “revive” a mitzvah or not.