sure, sam isn't viewed as explicitly monstrous in a couple more seasons than he is but i think it's important to note that the same dichotomy that's applied to him in moments where he is considered in its monstrous demographic is one that continues to both exist and be applied to him when he is considered part of familial and hunter dynamics—this is also the same dichotomy that is continued to be used at both every single decision making point of the job they continue to work until fifteen minutes before the show ends as well as with the people in their immediate environment, many of which are narrative mirrors of sam and/or explicitly use the same points of conflict he once experienced, thereby continuing to allegorise his experiences through another character but in a different scenario to explore another angle of it thus making sam's monstrosity relevant to every single monster we come across and kill. soulless!sam, vampire!dean, amy, emma, benny, magda, jack, werewolf!claire etc. the research that sam does and is narratively archetypically utilised with as well as which he uses for his own character exploration is literally optimised towards the eradication of monsters rather than sincere total education. i do think it's more than intentionally disingenuous to suggest that sam's monstrosity doesn't matter at any one point or beyond one point on the monster killing show
