The way you “tweaked” it doesn’t change that the definition was used in an exclusive manner. The only way the second class can be equal to the first class is by meeting the criteria used exclusively to define that first class. This proves without doubt the courts such as Ankeny are reading it wrong. Wong Kim Ark did NOT read it wrong. Extending the triangle analogy, they used a broader definition of “triangle” and characterized that definition with a completely different term to avoid calling or equating Ark’s citizenship with an “equilateral triangle.”
I guess if you start with a misreading of the words, any analogy you come up with is likely to be flawed. That you deny or can't see the flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.