I think you've brought up several points that need to be addressed - this though I can say that Erick has aptly replied.
I was going to let Erick's post slide since I did not think it was directly responsive, but if you feel it is, I'll comment briefly.
Erick wrote: [I don't understand the quoting markup, obviously.]
In my view what he has done is neither a translation nor a "transliteration" but a constructive criticism of the English translation he used as his reference point, with additional reference to some portions of romaji provided in the original translated text. His point is that that the existing translation in English leaves somehting to be desired, and he critically approaches those questions with his suggested changes.
That's all just fine. I have no issue with whatever exercises anyone may wish to perform. I was simply pointing out that it is probably most beneficial to label such exercises as accurately as possible so as not to mislead those who encounter them. This is, perhaps, somewhat analogous to the use of 'kata' in the dojo. Hopefully we can all agree (without having to elaborate ad nauseum) that confusion about what one is seeing or doing does not add to the value of educational exercises.
Although I do happen to object to the content of the article, that is not the objection I voice here. My only objection is that the text is presented in such a way as to confuse the issue of what it actually represents. My initial reaction was mild bemusement that an article so concerned with engineering language and word choices would have so inappropriately worded its own title: it does not lend to your credibility as a translator - or as a selector of English alternatives.
At this point, I understand quite well the exercise you performed, and it is your right to have done so. A little more attention to exposition and clarity would have resolved in advance the issues I raised, but hey - who really cares? The only reason defense of the choice not to clearly label sticks out in my mind is that it makes me wonder what ulterior purpose might be served by the default confusion created by not doing so. If it was in fact a harmless organizational or wording error, a simple "mea culpa" would close the question. Complicated or evasive rhetoric just piques cynical curiosity.