I think it's only valid to the extent that players agree on which version they're playing, as that agreement on the rules is what allows players to play together in any useful sense of the word. Even in games that leave room for unarbitrated differences of interpretation (GM-less RPGs, narrative miniature campaigns), there's an underlying agreement between the players as to what type of game the one they are playing should be, which guides them in deciding which of multiple interpretations sounds best in the moment, allowing them to continue. When players can't agree on what should happen next, at least one player will feel cheated by the outcome. And when one player diliberately obfuscates the nature of the game being played, that player _intends_ to cheat the others.
I think it's only valid to the extent that players agree on which version they're playing, as that agreement on the rules is what allows players to play together in any useful sense of the word. Even in games that leave room for unarbitrated differences of interpretation (GM-less RPGs, narrative miniature campaigns), there's an underlying agreement between the players as to what type of game the one they are playing should be, which guides them in deciding which of multiple interpretations sounds best in the moment, allowing them to continue. When players can't agree on what should happen next, at least one player will feel cheated by the outcome. And when one player diliberately obfuscates the nature of the game being played, that player _intends_ to cheat the others.