<if amending Claim 29 was something that TPL did NOT want to do, and only did after all other measures failed, it stands to reason that it 'weakened" the patent in some fashion.>

I thought I explained why it might be wrong to go with the assumption that because it was amended, it has to be weakened. Your analysis is just reiterating that same perception which is not based on anything concrete. Are you saying that my assumption is full of holes? Are you saying that my assumption is not based on black and white facts? If so, how? Do you see right justified in the claim?

Opty