“Substance” is understood as not being the physical qualities, but what the it’s essentially or “substantially” made of. “Substance” comes from Latin and means what stands underneath, not the upfront. The fact remains that the elements of the Eucharist, once consecrated, retain the physical qualities of bread and wine. Afterall, it does taste like bread (or a bread like substance if your parish uses wafers), and “drunk with the Holy Spirit” won’t sway officer friendly if you drive home after having reverently disposed of too much excess consecrated wine. What the Articles of Religion are doing is refuting the common misunderstanding of transubstantiation that it means the the people are somehow fooled into seeing and tasting bread and wine. It really is bread and wine. And it really is flesh and blood. I don’t want to get into the Definition of Chalcedon, but I that’s how I think of it.
Besides, the liturgy gives a strong hint of Anglican thinking- just read the Prayer of Humble Access.
A thing is either one substance or the other. It is its essence, the answer to the question "what is it?"
You still exhibit a difference between what you say is the Anglican position and what is the Orthodox/Catholic position.
And that's OK. You can believe what you want. But please recognize that we are not the same.
We do teach that God miraculously removes the substance of the bread and wine and changes it into the substance of Body and Blood. And also He miraculously makes it retain the appearance of bread and wine. Or as you say "fools" us into thinking they are bread and wine.
Your "common misunderstading" is our dogma.