Ok, I've gotten some more replies (and my dialog is ongoing, I will post a full transcript when its done), and getting answers is like pulling teeth. Really, I want to chat with a designer about what the hell the rules are supposed to be doing, but thanks to the wisdom of Andy Chambers that doesn't seem to be possible.
However, I think I know why CustServe is annoying me so. They're stuck trying to defend some ideal of pan-textual inerrancy where possible (and where it doesn't offend their sense of balance), and thus have accepted the Class Acts powers as written without question. It just then becomes a matter of interpreting the PHB in a light which supports that view. As the evidence for damage type X => keyword X is in an example, when asked what's up with the Class Acts powers they just say that example is meaningless. In effect, my last response from CS basically said (paraphrased) 'page 55 is not rules text'. I find that answer deeply unsatisfying, and even if it is not rules text, if it is actively wrong, *why is it in the PHB in the first place*? But CS can't answer that question because they didn't write it and they didn't design the rules.
Now, for a rules system I'm not going to argue with an initial position of textual inerrancy. But when a primary source (eg, the PHB) makes a claim that is contradicted by a secondary (splat) or tertiary (dragon) source, i'm going to side with the PHB, even if the claim is only made as an example. Examples are important to rules (hence the weight of prior court decisions in legal cases).
The disparity in appropriate weight here is doubly apparent because the example in question was written by someone on the core design team, whereas the Class Acts article was not (editor =/= designer), and I hope the design team knows the system better than the Class Acts writer does.
So at the worst I vigorously disagree with CS's assumption that the Class Acts article is infallible. (And things are only going to get worse as additional material gets published - this does not give me hope for the system maintaining some high design standard).