The other thing is that on the occasions when we are explicitly told a Vanishing Charm is being used, it is being used on objects that one does not expect to want back (such as failed potions). This suggests that its purpose is to get rid of things permanently rather than suspend their existence temporarily.
Come to that, if Vanishing Charms worked as you propose, they would surely see much wider use in the books in the many instances when an object must be temporarily concealed from a searching enemy.
In canon we also see Bill Weasley use the spell on several parchments that look like building plans to Harry in order to stop Harry reading them: these turn out to be Order of the Phoenix business. So from that, it seems like vanishing probably doesn’t destroy the target and does get used to hide things you don’t want seen.
I actually can think of another example of vanishing being used in canon to hide an object from the enemy: there exist vanishing cabinets that will vanish you if you step inside and close the doors, and then re-conjure you inside the cabinet’s twin, wherever it happens to be. These are useful as a means of escape in case of Death Eater attack. Notably, if the twin cabinet is non-functional you get stuck in a limbo that sounds very much like non-being.
Over his shoulder Harry saw Bill, who still wore his long hair in a ponytail, hastily rolling up the lengths of parchment left on the table.(...) In the flash of light caused by Mrs Weasley’s charm Harry caught a glimpse of what looked like the plan of a building. Mrs Weasley had seen him looking. She snatched the plan off the table and stuffed it into Bill’s already overladen arms. This sort of thing ought to be cleared away promptly at the end of meetings,′ she snapped, before sweeping off towards an ancient dresser from which she started unloading dinner plates. Bill took out his wand, muttered, ‘Evanesce!’ and the scrolls vanished.
Bill explicitly using the Vanishing Charm on valuable documents is stronger evidence for your interpretation than McGonagall’s statement is for mine. I hereby change my belief.
(this weakens my original point, that of casual cruelty to animals in the Potterverse as a sign of poor world-building, but doesn’t falsify it since we have plenty of other examples, especially from Transfiguration)
The other thing is that on the occasions when we are explicitly told a Vanishing Charm is being used, it is being used on objects that one does not expect to want back (such as failed potions). This suggests that its purpose is to get rid of things permanently rather than suspend their existence temporarily.
Come to that, if Vanishing Charms worked as you propose, they would surely see much wider use in the books in the many instances when an object must be temporarily concealed from a searching enemy.
In canon we also see Bill Weasley use the spell on several parchments that look like building plans to Harry in order to stop Harry reading them: these turn out to be Order of the Phoenix business. So from that, it seems like vanishing probably doesn’t destroy the target and does get used to hide things you don’t want seen.
I actually can think of another example of vanishing being used in canon to hide an object from the enemy: there exist vanishing cabinets that will vanish you if you step inside and close the doors, and then re-conjure you inside the cabinet’s twin, wherever it happens to be. These are useful as a means of escape in case of Death Eater attack. Notably, if the twin cabinet is non-functional you get stuck in a limbo that sounds very much like non-being.
Bill explicitly using the Vanishing Charm on valuable documents is stronger evidence for your interpretation than McGonagall’s statement is for mine. I hereby change my belief.
(this weakens my original point, that of casual cruelty to animals in the Potterverse as a sign of poor world-building, but doesn’t falsify it since we have plenty of other examples, especially from Transfiguration)