While I quite enjoy Hexagram, I'm not convinced its content always reflects the 'intentions' of SJ so much as highly optional content (and even mechanics) meant to facilitate subsets of players 'style' of interpreting TFT. For example, 'if you want to make Astrology real in the game, here's one writer's way of doing it!'
Because these rules aren't "canon," the rules aren't always going to be airtight. For example, by Hexagram 4, adding a bronze boss and rim to your small wooden shield makes it worthless (while a wooden shield is, on the first hit, as effective as an iron or steel-bossed and rimmed shield). There's a similar problem for comparing wooden armor with bronze chain-mail, IIRC. But, the article stands as one player and writer's efforts to represent more diverse material, and while it isn't air tight it gets far enough along the way that it certainly is a useful article for someone who likes handling material in a similar way: perfect for Hexagram.
Similarly, I wouldn't assume that SJ plays the way you are describing (in fact, I think if we searched through example play videos enough we could find explicit examples where he doesn't*) just because Hexagram produced an option card to help cover some issues with "your" (I recognize you don't actually play this way) interpretation. This is because, on the off chance someone is interpreting it this way, or wants defend against jabs, or is even just playing the game with the classic interpretation but wants a card reminding them of the move and defend option when they're looking at the board at the start of movement, hey, here's a card for them to use: perfect for Hexagram.
I do think it would have made more sense, given your own inclinations on the rules, to submit an article noting the same contradictions and using this to argue that the interpretation is simply wrong. Ironically, I think Steve might have said "good point, but it's errata" rather than published a full article in that case (although the card has uses regardless of the interpretation). As it stands, it seems that SJGames actually misunderstood the problem your article is about. Note that in the current TFT errata this is noted as a potential issue worth revising about
defend which misses the wider point - under your interpretation a figure can be put into HTH during the enemy's move but be disengaged during their own move, so they get to Ready A New Weapon and get a dagger out for free instead of with the usual DX test, or disbelieve, or heck, they can take a Missile Weapon Attack if you similarly misinterpret the rules for firing from prone. Similarly they can defend if they were engaged at the start of their move, and option otherwise not available to figures in HTH. And don't even try to interpret what "One Last Shot" missile attacks are actually supposed to do when you're allowing regular disengaged missile attacks by figures in enemy's front hexes!
There's a reason new players and old players all play it the same way (every play example I've seen, at least). It's why there's all of these fine reimaginings of the options list as a way of *organizing* the fundamental flow of moves restricted by engagement, actions restricted by moves and engagement/HTH status:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...27#post2284227
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=168290
It's just incoherent to interpret it otherwise and creates more weird rule ambiguity than it 'solves.'
*I looked and couldn't find any examples that would play differently either way, although the way SJ talks about it (he explains actions as having restrictions from how far you move) makes me believe that (if he is currently playing TFT) he plays actions the same way as they were intended in Classic TFT.