I'd rather attribute this reasoning to the combination of Creative Ti, ignoring/normative Te.
Going from my own experience of ignoring Ni, which manifests as that internal voice saying; "There's no historic basis for the success of your initiative!" and my innate reaction being; "Shush, I'm trying to do something here!"
Following this pattern, I can totally see this being applicable in his case, citing the example of dimensionality in mathemathics and dimensionality in Socionics. Ignoring Te in this case, manifests as dismissing the difference in context and following the similarity of terminlology. (Not considering evaluation of effectiveness, which is what Te usually takes care of.)
The whole point of LIIs being so good at generating possibilities is because they ignore the contextual connection. (Just as ILEs ignore the historical data pointing towards what is most likely, and thus succeed with what others deemed impossible/unlikely.)
The strictness tends to be internalized for a Ti dom, which is displayed in his writing of not wanting to "accept"/"play around" with the idea that someone else's explanation could be right. Listing more facts (although without connections) attempting to impose his view, rather than doublechecking himself. (I recognize this reluctance in the same way as when someone tells me that what I see as a possibility, to be unlikely.)
Yup, it's true, it's parroting of sources - but only by usage of factual statements. When asked for connection, the request is dismissed with a rant on how ineffective someone else is at locating information. (See post #614. Funnily enough, this is consistent with MBTI theory of Te "Opposing function", which equals to Socionics normative/ignoring.)
Alternatively, this kind of behaviour shows disinterest in advancing a topic, in favour of advancing their own image of superiority. Which would support @
Hacim's claim in post #615.
What lead me down this path is the difference between ILE and LII. (Ti doms - LII - tend to prefer attempting to impose their logical structure on existing structures, whereas ILE mainly voices the concerns about the existing structure, then works around it wherever possible.)
My main doubt of him being an ILE is the reference to validity by authority itself. (Post #611) If there's one thing that tends to be true for ILE, it's that an authority can also be wrong and we would not be content with simply citing authority without explanation, when faced with a question. - Sure, this one is not based directly in socionics but it's one of the most dominant ILE traits across the board.
Another doubt is the fact that a main ILE drive is "how something works", not "that something works".