I have read it length, multiple times. (And I corrected the mistake I made regarding who was replying to which post.) I stand by my reading that
@Crimson Longinus was generally discussing (over the course of several posts) how they resolve the edge case of backlit darkness caused by two light sources with a stretch of darkness in between. They determine that the light level in the backlit squares counts as dim light from the perspective of observers who can see the backlight. That seems reasonable to me, and no more in violation of the text than ruling that observers who are effectively suffering from the blinded condition with respect to a backlit wall can nonetheless see that wall's silhouette rather than whatever is behind it.
Since that's not how you interpret the discussion, perhaps some of the current disagreement is because you and
@Crimson Longinus were misunderstanding what each other was trying to convey.