We have a situation here. When you presented your first rewrite of that passage, you said you did it because you felt that it was poorly constructed. My response was that your rewrite didn't make that statement any better, and I made it clear that there was nothing wrong with the passage to begin with. Now you came up with another rewrite and you are asking me for my opinion about it.
I do think that your rewrite is grammatically and semantically airtight, but I think the more fundamental question to ask is this: What’s your reason for rewriting it? That must be clear in our minds when we set out to rewrite anything, particularly when it is grammar-perfect and semantically and structurally sound as it is. As they say, “When it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The only legitimate reason I can think of for doing a rewrite in that situation is when we want to seamlessly incorporate a passage into an exposition of our own, in which case the passage might need to be tweaked somewhat to link smoothly to a preceding statement in the exposition, then to segue as smoothly to a succeeding sentence or paragraph that we have in mind. What this means in practical terms is that for a rewrite to be meaningful, it has to be done and presented showing the actual passage that comes before it and the actual passage that you have mind to follow it. In short, we shouldn’t rewrite just for rewriting’s sake. We shouldn’t rewrite in a contextual vacuum and, as I earlier said, we should do so only with a clear purpose for the rewrite that we have in mind to do.
