that is not my definition but the definition provided in NG, IMA and BGG instructional materials. If you had an issue with the definition then you should have raised it at the time just as you should have mentioned that Dr. Neal did not believe his data represented shoulder position vs trying to (mis)represent it as such.
The instructional materials do not represent that the upper torso should be parallel to the target line at impact so you are tilting at windmills with statements that assume such.
I can not help that some people are inaccurate in their references. It is one thing to make use of that in teaching and quite another to attempt to argue details with inaccurate references.