On the "authorized" topic, the idea and intention in s.9 according to what Dancey has said is that was simply saying that in the event WotC makes a change in the license later (updates it) the publisher can use any version it prefers of a previously approved OGL license -- but it has to be text that had been authorized by WotC. You don't get to quote a version of the license that appears in a product that includes text that WotC didn't authorize, and then rely on that misprint.
The fact that WotC previously authorized it is what s.9 is focusing on. De-authorization doesn't enter into it. It would be rare indeed that WotC would "update" the license going forward and not end the prior versions of the license going forward, too. But in the case of dealing with material previously released, the licensee gets to pick and choose from multiple versions which were authorized at some point, (regardless of whether they are current now) and rely on it.
Seen through this prism, de-authorization is a weak argument. It looks the same (but isn't the same) as WotC stating its how things are going to be going forward under a new license for new material. WotC can do that for new material - that is beyond doubt, imo.
De-authorization is not a revocation, either. Those terms can mean different things (and in this case, they do).