That is an awful lot of words, but you're still labouring under a misunderstanding of the original argument.

Against my better judgement:

In short, FaCode:Ax[Fx -> Gx], Fa |= Ga 1. Ax[Fx -> Gx] Premise 2. Fa Premise 3. Fa -> Ga Universal Elimination (1) 4. Ga Modus Ponens (2, 3) Domain: organisms F : ... is a hamster G : ... is a member of Typology Central a : Provokerdoes notdefine the "Provoker" in the conclusion as a hamster.

I don't know how tall Provoker is. I suppose he is from 5 to 7 feet tall, but my definition of Provoker doesn't include a specific height. He could be 5'1", 5'2", 5'3", 5'4", and so on up until about 7'0".

If we write the statement "Provoker is 5'11"," are we defining "Provoker" as 5'11""? Not necessarily.

If "Provoker" is defined as someone who is 5'11", then the statement "Provoker is 5'11"" is merely a tautology. (Like saying that an unmarried man is a man).

However, if we can use the term "Provoker" to mean someone between 5'0" and 7'0", then the statement "Provoker is 5'11"" is not a tautology, i.e. it can be false without contradiction.

The point is that in this latter case, should we use "Provoker" in another sentence like "Provoker has brown hair," the term "Provoker" will not carry with it the predicate "... 5'11"," but will continue to mean "... is from 5'0" to 7'0" tall."

Back to the original argument, the term "Provoker" in the statement "Provoker is a member of TypologyCentral" does not inherit the property "... is a hamster" from the second premise.

If "Provoker" was defined to be a hamster from the beginning, then the statement "Provoker is a hamster" would be a mere tautology, but that isn't what we do in quantificational logic, (because it would, besides other things, violate the definition of the semantic turnstile).

A metalogic for QL under your interpretation could include additional rules of inference governing the situation where all the premises are false, but that would not be standard logic.