On the other hand, the whole purpose of this topic (as far as I can tell) was to lay down the gauntlet and effectively say, "Well, what is
different or inconsistent?"
It was never assumed that answers to those questions would be found. To that end, I think it's fine to point out those potential differences, since that's what Robert asked for... but pushing for why the/a Mahavihara interpretation is incorrect would not be appropriate in this forum.
It's a fine line, and I think people are doing a decent job of maintaining appropriate balance.
"Having understood name-and-form, which is a product of prolificity,
And which is the root of all malady within and without,
He is released from bondage to the root of all maladies,
That Such-like-one is truly known as 'the one who has understood'." (Snp 3.6)
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)