As you say para.1 and para.5 are in conflict under a plain reading of English. And the whole +1% of marketcap being pivotal to whether a 'bad faith' attack is reversed is open to the lobbying critique you outline.
Therefore I think the community needs to make a statement of values on this issue - and I think (we all due respect to @dan) this is presently a fudge. He clearly reckons that due to the likelyhood of bugs arising, the stability and trustworthiness (ironically) of Steem rests on individuals not being able to manipulate the value of Steem in bad faith. But equally like many crypto-evangelists he wishes to maintain the idea of decentralisation and code as law.
I believe the community is better either;
(i)
(a) fully recognise the likelyhood of a future hack (in bad faith) and deciding that the community can reverse such a hack in a limited set of circumstances (have a schedule of bad faith actions in the constitution)
(b) adopt a formal bug-bounty scheme, and adjust the blockchain to payout to a fund for this purpose.
(c) choose to give hacks below 1% the presumption of white-hat status
or
(ii)
(a) commit to the irreversibility and immutability principles
(b) and treat any hack as a bug bounty reward, whether it's 1% or 51% of marketcap
(c) !another solution needed to maintain the integrity of Steem in the face of a high-level hack (I have no answer to this)!