Should a finding of absolute harmlessness be required for an intentional and egregious Sixth Amendment violation?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Because it impacts upon the very structure of the trial, should a finding of absolute harmlessness, rather than harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, be required where the Court committed an intentional and egregious Sixth Amendment violation by terminating defense counsel’s cross-examination of the government’s sole cooperating witness in the middle of an extended answer that the court concluded would jeopardize the prosecution’s theory, yet falsely suggesting to the jury that the examination was being stopped due to some impropriety of counsel, and should that be the rule, notwithstanding a prosecutorial offer to make such witness later available on the defense’s case-in-chief?