The value of Huamán Poma's chronicle is not just the historical account per se, but the fact that it appeals to the arguments, values and institutions that justified the colonization of his country.
Obviously, whatever arguments he presented, even if they had reached the Spanish court, would have been discarded by the political necessities of the moment. Multiple times (e.g. Peace of Utrecht, Congress of Vienna, Berlin Conference) the great powers have used symbolic statements, forgotten treaties, obscure precedents... to legitimize the partition or annexation of a territory; or the independence or promoted status of some other territories perhaps sharing remarkable circumstances to the above-mentioned and now-divided territory. The point is, the legal reasoning comes after the political decision.
In this thread we've seen something similar. Multiple users have presented some of the arguments that one usually finds among a very particular political group in Spanish politics. "They were provinces, not colonies", "They were not conquered but liberated", "They died mostly of disease", "Spanish laws protected the new citizens". Those are staples of Spanish nationalism (particularly right-wing), aiming to defend the legitimacy of the decisions of XVIth century monarchs and ultimately to present an attractive national narrative.
Out of respect for this site and its rules, I will not engage those users, but... we find ourselves now in a similar situation of that of Huamán: should we contest those interpretations? Will otherwise internet archeologists from the XXXIst century conclude that those interpretations were common and shared among the societies of both Spain and Peru (because "el que calla otorga", i.e. silence gives consent)? From Huamán Poma's history we should conclude that contesting an argument, just "showing up" is in itself the most powerful argument, isn't it?