Mx-Is a human
Fx-Is a hamster
Gx-member of typologycentral
Premise 1: (x) Fx-Gx (all hamsters are members of typologycentral.
Premise 2: Ma V Fa (Provoker is either a human or a hamster)
Conclusion: Provoker is a member of typology central (Ga)
Step 3: Fa-Ga (1, Universal elimination)
Step 4: ?????? We've hit the dead end. In order to get the conclusion (Ga), we need Fa that provoker is a hamster. We don't have that. You can't say that Provoker is now a hamster (Fa), as he can be either a human or a hamster. The expression Ma V Fa merely states that at either one of the two (Ma, Fa) or both are true. You do not know which of the two is true and you do not know that both are true. Because of this you cannot assume that Fa is true.
I don't think that a disjunction aids the cause of your argument at all. On that note, we need a conjunction not a disjunction that provoker is both a human and a hamster. But in that case, we can only prove that provoker is a hamster because the conclusion that provoker is a member follows from the premise (Fa) that he is a hamster. This leads to a false conclusion. Your argument is missing the premise that all humans are members of typologycentral. (Mx-Gx) Only if you have that premise you could arrive at the conclusion of an argument with false premises and a true conclusion.
The bottom line is that your proof, featuring the disjunction symbol (V) does not give on the liberty to define Provoker as either a human or as a hamster. My proof (see post 38) does. The case is such because one of my premises states that provoker is a human and the other states that he is a hamster, I am free to use either one, or both.