Seems useful to distinguish when disagreement comes from taking different logical steps versus different priors on what the world looks like. The above all being examples of different priors or beliefs about who the average guy is and what he needs to hear not necessarily differences in logic
Ran a pretty similar experiment just on PD variants using some different framings with temperature = 0. Saw high cooperation rates when the other player was described as "an identical reasoning model" and "another instance of yourself (same model)" for several models.
Mistral models were a bit of an anomaly; they'd cooperate but often because they were assuming goodwill on behalf of the opponent or prioritizing collective outcomes rather than citing a shared reasoning process.
code here: https://www.expectedparrot.com/content/clajelli/superrationality-game-theory
This just seems like proof by contradiction. Argument bad because can reach obviously false conclusions from it. Doesn't mean original statement is wrong, but go get yourself a narrower argument