Appeal to consistency? That's not even a fallacy.
Your argument requires throwing out RAW repeatedly (Dragon Magic, Dragons of Kyrnn, and the first half of the Draconomicon definition) in favor of taking only the other half of the Draconomicon definition under a specific interpretation that, as TML has shown, really isn't required. And you keep claiming that your justification is that only the primary source matters (not true, since specificity allows secondary sources to trump, which is why we have more than 11 base classes despite what the DMG says)... while ignoring what's said in that same primary source. For example, Dragon Magic is the only place to mention 12 age categories as a requirement, so that's in.
In the end, this debate is "what does RAW say?" If your interpretation requires throwing out the majority of RAW to get there, you're just flat out wrong. Especially when there's no need to do so... just use advance as it's generally used in text form (note how it's used differently in text than in tables... in tables you get "Advancement" which means "the method by which the creature usually gains HD" but in text you get "advances" which means the same thing as the common English usage).
You're just using "advances" incorrectly, pretending it's a text "Advancement" entry, when it's clearly not. That interpretation requires throwing out most of RAW.
JaronK