What I meant was explained in the part of the post you snipped.I'm not sure what you mean by that?
That has always been our philosophy as well, and it is precisely because we do not assume that creatures stand stock still next to a threat that this whole issue arise in the first place. I'm sure that similar models or images can lead to different playstyles.
By this time I get that you and I don't see eye to eye around the gaming table, but there is no need to be condescending about it.
Because we assume stuff and interactions are happening between "camera close-ups" (your actions on your turn) we have zero problem with intentionally non-deceptive spells revealing their nature to creatures during that off-camera scuffle. So, we dont have to push the "confused creature attacks spiritual weapon" into the creature's "on-camera" turn costing it actions.
It's the spells where deception is intended by the spell, where they definexways to defeat it as part of the on-camera close-up "action economy" where we go with "its deceptive until you take actions or do whatever."
Holding the creature-s ability to suss out that this effect is or isnt whatever until their turn, until their action etc and then using that to justify hitting its actions, seeing that as a problem, needing a special exception for only one of the vast number of effects that fo similar things... all seems to not be a problem for us because of that whole model of "stuff is happening off turn too."
Hope that clears it up.