Just what is that supposed to mean?
That you've brought nothing to back up your own claims nor to fault my own, yet still dragged this discussion back into the light of day despite being asked not to.
the ability, AS WRITTEN, simply doesn't specify one way or another.
Yes, it does. It specifies that you gain a Con bonus. That's all it needs to specify for us to know that the ability is not limited by Max Dex, since Max Dex doesn't limit Con bonuses.
I can read the ability in a way where it says it doesn't change the constraints on this particular AC bonus but simply changes the number used
No, you can't. Because it specifies that you are now using a
different bonus. This different bonus already exists, and nowhere in any of the rules that apply to that already existing bonus are the limitations of the old one mentioned.
the assumption that changing the source also changes the limits imposed on the source is shaky at best, if not an outright logical fallacy.
It's not shaky at all when both sources used have preexisting rules and we switch between them. It would, in fact, by the warped conclusion that we would
not use the preexisting rules for the new source, since it is not specified that the rules stay the same despite the source changing.
Further, the assumption that the line about retaining bonuses to AC actually supports the argument that other limits placed on the Dex to AC bonus don't apply is absolutely logical fallacy.
It goes out of it's way to say when it's limited in the same ways as the old source. That, in fact, does suggest that that is the only similarity in limits (or that it's so poorly written that the rules point to that despite the author's intent), otherwise it would simply say, essentially, "still limited as the original source."
Finally, I find it laughable is that you're speaking of me arguing over semantics and RAI at the same time.
Actually, I mentioned them separately. See, because that summary could well still apply (and it does unless you want to try houseruling the abilities), but you could (and sadly have) still argue semantics of something else there to try to suggest that your ideas are indeed supported.