[Androider]

Could you could state that the newly reported issue is both duplicate and that the original report was closed as N/A?

Not applicable typically means the reporter is free to try to argue that is in fact applicable, but by stating it's both duplicate and N/A neither the second reporter nor the company will spend further time arguing back and forth, as even if the issue was applicable the credit would go to the original reporter.

[thaumasiotes]

What goal are you trying to achieve?

It looks like what happened here was that the issue was (explicitly) labeled a duplicate, and the original issue was (implicitly) N/A, which you can tell if you're familiar with the platform by the fact that the duplicate report cost reputation points.

This achieves the result you mention, that interest in litigating the report further is muted because it's a duplicate. Though you might want it recognized as applicable anyway because of the reputation effects, even if you're the duplicate.

I did once see a company receive a report that duplicated an earlier report that had been closed by mistake. When the new one prompted a reexamination, they reopened the earlier report and duped the new one to it. That struck me as pretty honorable compared to the easier path of leaving the closed report closed and just processing the new one as if it were new.