I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, but we must also keep in mind that this dictionary is more then a century old, written when Pali studies in the English-speaking world were still in their infancy.
It has been criticized by the likes of K.R. Norman and Nyanatusita. The latter wrote at his introduction to the Visuddhimagga:
The PED, as its preface states, is “essentially preliminary”; for when it was published many books had still not been collated; it leaves out many words even from the Sutta Piþaka, and the Sub-commentaries are not touched by it. Also—and most important here—in the making of that dictionary the study of Pali literature had for the most part not been tackled much from, shall one say, the philosophical, or better, epistemological, angle, work and interest having been concentrated till then almost exclusively on history and philology. […] By this, however, it is not intended at all to depreciate that great dictionary, but only to observe that in using it the Pali student has sometimes to be wary: if it is criticized in particular here (and it can well hold its own against criticism), tribute must also be paid to its own inestimable general value.
In short, we can’t uncritically accept definitions of that dictionary for a variety of reasons.
That is the same for all other dictionaries, although in some cases to a lesser extent.
I think the reason @sujato and @Brahmali wrote their book “The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts” was to establish what suttas are authentic for the purpose of drawing a line between them to judge what later definitions , concepts, and doctrines might not be reliable.
I think @sujato is using the Pali English Dictionary terms he and other notable scholars think make sense and uses them in his translations provided they are not on the unreliable side of the line.
You are he are absolutely justified to not critically accept definitions or what English words should be used in translations. I just think there are other methods beyond the line in the sand approach to consider. Terms defined in later suttas or commentaries could be correct, but their acceptance for use in translations need to be justified either through demonstration that other alternatives do not make sense and explanatory power. Direct Experience cannot be easily communicated.
I think @sujato is correct that triangulation is unreliable. I think the alternative is to have a map of terms used in what suttas and how they map to each other when different Pali terms are used. I am working on a spreadsheet for that purpose. Justifications will need to be given to prefer one term over another when there are differences of opinion. I am mostly focusing on Snp 4.2, Snp 5.2, Ud 1.10, and MN 119.
Mute is translated to sensed three out of the four times it is translated. If this book is the reason for saying that mute only ever means thought, that is not supported by the book being cited. Sensed clearly means the felt, smelt, and tasted 75% of the time in that book. I have seen other translations where mute is translated to sensed and felt, tasted, and smelt. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it to sensed in his translation of the Bahiya Sutta here (see page 35). Again making it clear that mute means the felt, tasted, and smelt.
The Buddha repurposed previously used concepts. Kamma became intentions. Did the Buddha repurpose mute? In Snp 4.2 contact includes the seen, the heard, the felt, the tasted, and the smelt. Sanna is the known. To completely all of know them and to cross over the flood in the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard only the heard, in the felt only the felt, in the tasted only the tasted, and in the smelt only the smelt. This is all in Snp 4.2. Ud 1.10 is simply saying this another way.
Ud 1.10 would not be describing a state where there is no you in that if in the felt there is more than only the felt, tasted, and smelt. The context of the passage confirms this.
