There are also books like this one:
whose goal is to help one better develop and experience one's less preferred functions (all 8 in fact, if you read through the page). I think it's true that some functions don't get along well with certain other functions, so it's not like we can use all 8 functions all at once out loud. Trying to be XXXX really isn't a healthy or achievable goal, but being able to use Fe, for example, when it's the best tool for the job is helpful.
I also acknowledge that different cognitive processes can lead to the same external behavior. The judge can arrive at the same verdict in different ways.
Anyway, I think the main problem here is one of term definition. It seems to me like the ones you use are narrower and more stringent than the generally used ones, and that leads to your disagreeing with that people have said in some specific cases. I'm not saying you have to change your definitions, but it does seem like not everyone is using terms in the same way, so acknowledging that may aid us when we try to understand each other.
Anyway, I feel like I've beat this topic into the ground. Just understand when I say I say "use Ti," I'm making a more limited claim than you would using the same phrase. I'll try to keep in mind when you say "use Ti," you mean it in more of a fundamental "Ti in charge of our days and our nights" kind of way.
(BTW, I do like the term "function attitude" from that Exegesis link. The functions do have conflicting priorities and approaches to answering "what's important?")