Yeah of course an
type can relate in a light to the
description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.
Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.