16. This term “dependent origination,” when applied to the total of states produced from the [total] conditionality, must be taken in two ways. [521] For that [total] ought to be arrived at (paþicco—adj.),2 since when it is arrived at (paþiyamáno), it leads to [supramundane] welfare and bliss and so the wise [regard] it as worthy to be arrived at (paccetuí); and then, when it arises (uppajjamáno), it does so “together with” (saha) and “rightly” (sammá), not singly or causelessly, thus it is a co-arising (samuppádo). Consequently: it is to be arrived at (paþicco) and it is a co-arising (samuppádo), thus it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda). Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a coarising (samuppáda); but it does so having depended (paþicca—ger.) in combination with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having depended (paþicca), is a co-arising (samuppáda), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda). And the total of causes is a condition for that [total of states produced from the conditionality], so, because it is a condition for that, this [total of causes] is called, “dependent origination,” using for it the term ordinarily used for its fruit just as in the world molasses, which is a condition for phlegm, is spoken of thus, “Molasses is phlegm,” or just as in the Dispensation the arising of Buddhas, which is a condition for bliss, is spoken of thus, “The arising of Buddhas is bliss” (Dhp 194).
17. Or alternatively:
The sum of causes too they call
“Facing its counterpart,” so all
Is in that sense “dependent,” as they tell;
This sum of causes too, as stated,
Gives fruits that rise associated,
So “co-arising” it is called as well.
18. This total of causes—indicated severally under the heading of each cause, beginning with ignorance—for the manifestation of formations, etc., is called “dependent” (paþicco—adj.), taking it as “facing, gone to, its counterpart” (paþimukham ito) owing to the mutual interdependence of the factors in the combination, in the sense both that they produce common fruit and that none can be dispensed with. And it is called a “co-arising” (samuppádo) since it causes the states that occur in unresolved mutual interdependence to arise associatedly. Consequently: it is dependent (paþicco) and a co-arising (samuppádo), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda).
19. Another method:
This total conditionally, acting interdependently,
Arouses states together equally;
So this too is a reason here wherefore the Greatest Sage,
the Seer,
Gave to this term its form thus succinctly.
The first: the word “dependent” (paþicca) indicates the combination of the conditions, [522] since states in the process of occurring exist in dependence on the combining of their conditions; and it shows that they are not eternal, etc., thus denying the various doctrines of eternalism, no cause, fictitious-cause, and power-wielder.3 What purpose indeed would the combining of conditions serve, if things were eternal, or if they occurred without cause, and so on?
23. The second: the word “origination” (samuppáda) indicates the arising of the states, since these occur when their conditions combine, and it shows how to prevent annihilationism, etc., thus preventing the various doctrines of annihilation [of a soul], nihilism, [“there is no use in giving,” etc.,] and moral-inefficacy-of action, [“there is no other world,” etc.]; for when states [are seen to] arise again and again, each conditioned by its predecessor, how can the doctrines of annihilationism, nihilism, and moral-inefficacy-of-action be maintained?
24. The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression “dependent origination” (paþicca-samuppáda) represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, “He who acts is he who reaps” and “One acts while another reaps” (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, “Not insisting on local language and not overriding normal usage” (M III 234).
This, in the first place, is the meaning of the mere words “dependent origination” (paþicca-samuppáda).
Ācariya Buddhaghosa gives several glosses of how to understand the term. I don't see anything in there which supports your view.