Por que a mordida do Basilisco não destruiu a Horcrux?

JK Rowling abordou este mesmo assunto no Carnegie Hall em 2007:

Question: When Harry was stabbed by a basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, since he was a Horcrux shouldn’t it have been destroyed then?

JK Rowling: I have been asked that a lot. Harry was exceptionally fortunate in that he had Fawkes. So before he could be destroyed without repair, which is what is necessary to destroy a horcrux, he was mended. However, I made sure that Fawkes wasn’t around the second time a Horcrux got stabbed by a basilisk fang, so the poison did its work and it was irreparable within a short period of time…. I established early in the book, Hermione says that you destroy a Horcrux by using something so powerful that there’s no remedy. But she does say there is a remedy for basilisk poison but of course it has to be administered immediately and when they stab the cup later – boy I’m really blowing this for anyone who hasn’t finished the book – there’s Fawkes, is my answer. And thank you for giving me a chance to say that because people have argued that quite a lot.

Parece uma desculpa para mim. A presa destruiu a taça imediatamente, assim como a espada fez com o medalhão e a cobra. A verdade é que Rowling não planejou Harry sendo um Horucrux quando escreveu o segundo livro.