Fundamentally, it doesn't matter. However, @Oofta is claiming the podcast on stealth vindicates his approach over others -- that it provided explicit justification for his approach. If his approach is as you suggest -- every situation every time is evaluated de novo -- then he's not in alignment with what the podcast is. I've no problem whatsoever if someone draws a tighter line than I do on what counts as special circumstances, but I sensed a goalpost shift somewhere in the last few pages in regards to what the podcast is and I'm trying to see if that's true.
To use your analogy, the podcast says that x is 10. It also says that sometimes, you add y and get a different answer. If @Oofta and @Helldritch are in agreement, I don't really care what y is or how often it's added to x. But, I suspect that their position is that it's always x+y and never just x. And, that's fine, but it's not what the podcast says.
So, you've both listened to the podcast. You've come away from the podcast with what are identical-in-practice approaches of how to handle invisibility. You describe the podcast differently, each in keeping with the fact that you describe your identical-in-practice approaches differently. I'm still not seeing a problem here.
If you both have identical-in-practice approaches to invisibility, then it follows that the podcast equally supports the practical results at both of your tables.