I tend to disregard the commentarial idea of magga and phala happening one immediately after the other. No such distinction seems to exist in the suttas. What we do have in the suttas, however, is the classification into eight noble beings, that is, the four pairs. For the stage of streamentry, the relevant pair would be the person who has attained the fruit of streamentry and the person who is practising for the attainment of the fruit of streamentry (sotāpattiphalasacchikririyāya paṭipanno, equivalent to the saddhānusārī and the dhammānusārī). In contrast to what the commentaries say, this latter person quite clearly exists in an ordinary sense, because they can be given gifts, etc. From this I deduce that all the eight ariyas are people who exists for an extended period of time.
It could be that the commentaries are referring to something else. If so, it is not mentioned in the suttas, and so I do not regard it as practically significant.
Your question still remains: at what point, exactly, does one internalise the noble eightfold path? In the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta we find the following:
“Sotāpanno, sotāpanno’ti hidaṃ, sāriputta, vuccati. Katamo nu kho, sāriputta, sotāpanno”ti?
“Yo hi, bhante, iminā ariyena aṭṭhaṅgikena maggena samannāgato ayaṃ vuccati sotāpanno, svāyaṃ āyasmā evaṃnāmo evaṅgotto”ti.
“Sāriputta, they speak of ‘a stream-enterer’. What is a stream-enterer?”
“Sir, anyone who possesses this noble eightfold path is called a stream-enterer, the venerable of such and such name and clan.”
So it seems clear enough that a streamenterer has internalised the eightfold path. I don’t know of any equivalent statement for the person practising to attain the fruit. At the same time, it seems clear enough that the “path attainer” - to use the commentarial terminology - must be very close the same “possession”. For instance, it is said that the path attainer is bound to attain the fruit before they die. In practice the difference is likely to be minimal.
OK, I see what you mean. Let’s start with samādhi. When you come out of samādhi, you direct the mind to insight. Your mind is entirely pure at this point, so that any action you do is technically bright. But you are not trying to make good kamma; what you are trying to do is to see the nature of the mind. There comes a point when the bright mind sees reality deeply enough to flip over and reject existence. At the same time you see that this happens through a natural process of cessation. It is at this point you start making neither dark nor bright kamma with neither dark nor bright results.
I think it may be useful to distinguish between two different aspects of mind. One is the making of kamma, the other the pursuit of insight. They are linked, but do not determine each other (condition yes, but not determine). So it is possible to have a mind which makes good kamma and simultaneously achieves insight into the mind. At a certain point the insight is so deep that the mind stops making good kamma and makes the neither dark nor bright kamma instead.
Something like that.
Precisely. Others may be close, but not quite there.
It’s not so much that they don’t practice it, but that it’s a bit haphazard. In other words, you don’t always succeed. Also, the streamenterer practices the whole path, but most people practice only a certain number of factors.
I hope I am not pushing you towards Christianity! That’s a scary thought. I might get the sack. 
), maybe that last type of gift giving in AN 7.52 is a gift given by a sotapanna? When we look at the preceding ways of giving a gift in the sutta they revolve around I, me and mine.
perhaps starting a war of defense against an aggressive nation to defend a weaker ally would be an example of something on the far right? Perhaps leading to the mara or titan realms?
for neither maybe?