This study is the reason the ezov identification is recorded in the atlas as unknown rather than as debated, and the distinction is worth setting out because the two words are easily confused.
Debated means camps exist. Scholars hold competing positions, each with its own evidence and its own advocates, and a reader can go and read the argument. The identification of the Vedic soma plant is debated in exactly that sense: four candidates, each with a serious case made for it in print.
Ezov is not like that. There is no rival identification with a body of argument behind it. What there is instead is a single well made inference, offered in the absence of anything to argue against, resting on the ecology of the region and on how the herbs of the oregano group have been used there since. Nobody is disputing it and nobody has confirmed it. What is missing is evidence, not agreement.
What would settle it is specific: archaeobotanical remains from a ritual context in the southern Levant, identified to species. Nothing of the kind has been recovered. Recording that plainly, and pointing the unknown at the investigation that reached no conclusion, is what allows the gap to be picked up by someone able to close it rather than quietly disappearing behind a translation convention.