From a debate mapping perspective, a key distinction is whether the perceived confusion arises from the translation (and in this case the translation of the translation) or from the original source material. At either extreme, a map may be a lucid representation of a confused debate or a confused representation of a lucid debate.

One of the strengths of a collaboratively editable debate map is that it offers a means to correct either source of confusion over time; so that the map, which is always provisional, evolves towards the best possible collective, current representation of the debate. Although, of course, from a Wittgensteinian perspective, I recognise that this may involve the admonition to delete some of the maps altogether!

Wittgenstein features (in a comparatively minor role) as one of the protagonists on the original map; and, as you indicate in your commentary, there is clearly an opportunity to expand the scope of his arguments both within the frame of the debate and about the frame of the debate.

This is precisely the kind of next step that we hope the representation of the map in this form will encourage and enable.