Law has a strong case for CoC. The problem is the double standard you are using to make his confirmation mandatory after Sanji’s.
The Baratie panel is Sanji reacting to Zoro choosing death over retreat from Mihawk. That arc also includes Sanji willing to die for Zeff… your opinion is superficial here. On WCI, Zeff was held hostage, Sanji believed his hands would be destroyed, his crew was threatened, and Chapter 856 has him explicitly admit that he wants to return. You prolly classify those sacrifices as “abandoning ambition.”
Meanwhile, Zoro offering Kuma the life attached to his swordsman dream and Law accepting death as long as Doflamingo ultimately falls count as evidence of exceptional resolve. 2 sets of standards again.
I also never claimed that leading the Curly Hats or offering his life independently guarantees CoC. They were parts of a broader comparison involving leadership, courage, will and personal conviction.
Asking whether every Straw Hat therefore has CoC replaces my cumulative argument with one I never made.
The manga has never established “never sacrificing or setting aside your personal dream” as the criterion. You seem to imply this constantly. Pedro captained his own crew, pursued the Poneglyphs and the Dawn, and died for that purpose without confirmed CoC. Persistence to one goal alone proves nothing.
And assuming your “leader of the next generation” statement refers to Chapter 1000, that passage is framed over Luffy, Zoro, Law, Kid and Killer together. Killer voids your narrative here.
Law may eventually receive CoC, and his independent case is strong. Sanji receiving it creates no obligation for Law. Your conclusion depends on counting Law’s sacrifices as resolve, Sanji’s sacrifices as surrender, and then treating Sanji as the minimum threshold Law must automatically exceed…
Essentially, you are just biased as they come.