Of all the things to disregard, this, really? It's not semantics, it's a very legitimate point.
Disclaimer yet again: I don't know the ins and outs of the Cologne case. I am theorising based on tidbits I'm aware of that Cologne was giving up something for Jarvi but this failed to be implemented.
If the BOG did indeed decide that Cologne would give up something for Greg and it had been implemented properly, then you would have a much weaker case, no? The Cologne example is clearly the worst one at the moment because 1) it seems there was no compensation and 2) I have no idea what happened. If it was more clear and executed properly you wouldn't be able to say, "look at how easy Cologne got away with it", and use that as your main argument.
As per your MS, the "GM succession process" is the actual decision behind what a franchise should pay for an external GM player. Failure to implement the decision is not a failure of the process.