One other aspect of Article V hasn't been discussed very much at FR. Though I know elements of the national government predictably thinks otherwise, the language of Article V doesn't require the states to make identical applications to Congress.
From Federalist 85, just two thirds of them need to apply and Congress must call a convention, and it is at the convention where amendments are proposed.
I won't assign comments to the Framers which I can't prove, but two thirds of the states to merely call a convention is not an especially high hurdle. I don't think it was designed to be as difficult, nearly impossible as the modern statists would have it. It is about what the Articles of Confederation required for major, weighty decisions.
However, three-fourths to ratify amendments is far higher, yet less than the unanimous consent required under the Articles, which BTW were never amended because of it, and in itself lead to the Federal Convention.
Based on the explicit wording of Article V, it is clear that congress must call a state convention to propose amendments when two thirds have applied, with or without justification in the form of amendments.
Based on the explicit wording of Article V, it is clear that congress must call a state convention to propose amendments when two thirds have applied, I agree with your analysis but, alas, historically the Congress does not. If the Congress could find the slightest deviation in applications for a convention it would simply pocket the application and refused to make the call. That is why I have in the past called for a template to provide identical language from every state which no doubt will be like herding cats as each legislative body will be determined to prove its brilliance by furnishing its own wording.
I was unaware of the provisions in the Federalist papers to which you refer but I have no doubt you are correct.
