I mostly agree with this. The way these Sanghakammas work, however, is that there is initially a rebuke, vigarati, and only then the imposition of a tajjanīya-kamma, “a legal procedure of tajjanīya”. If the offender stops after the rebuke, there is no need for a Sanghakamma. Only if they don’t, is the Sanghakamma to be performed. This means that tajjanīya is a stronger kind of censure than vigarati, “to rebuke”. Moreover, the Sanghakamma is a formal legal procedure, whereas the vigarati is more casual. Both of these elements - the severity and the formality - suggests to me that “condemnation” is appropriate.