If you are looking for greater insight from such pieces than has been available on ENWorld for the past week, the expectations that will be met are low.
For one, this stuff is complicated, even for lawyers. It takes time and a fair bit of detail and effort to wade through it all.
For another,
one of these threads has had ... 6... (7?) lawyers participate in the minutiae, ultimately rejecting the initial premise -- hailing from various common law jurisdictions: the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, coming from academia as well as practitioners over the past week. You won't find a more in-depth or complete discussion on this topic anywhere else on the internet than right here on ENworld. It took that group of lawyers probably 4 or 5 days before we seem to have arrived at a
guarded consensus on the topic.
I know an 86 page thread is not easily digestible; still, the point to take away is that this stuff is complicated
even for lawyers and that if you are looking for certainty and clarity, you are not likely to find it anywhere. We can speak only in terms of probabilities, not certainties. This sort of answer can be disappointing to some, but it's where we are, just the same.
