That’s fair.I’m not trying to justify anything, I’m only trying to find an explanation that fits the facts. Interpretations of implied meanings are only that; however confusing their text is, it does not explicitly contradict itself.
You can try to change the facts to fit your interpretation, but I wouldn’t consider that to be a particularly fruitful endeavor. If you genuinely believe the explicit parts of the text to be in error, you should submit errata or tweet Crawford for confirmation.
Until the text changes, I think it’s only rational to assume that what it says is true for the game.