Are you then suggesting that these rules are not actually parallels, since the point of the Pali rule is different from the others? Or parallels that have evolved into quite different directions?
It seems that they should be parallels because they all have the common theme of a “vague expectation”.
If the Pali rule were actually about blocking a robe cloth distribution, the rule would be redundant because Pali Pc 27 and the parallels already cover that case:
Yā pana bhikkhunī dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅgaṃ paṭibāheyya, pācittiyaṃ.
Should any bhikkhuni block a robe-cloth distribution that is in accordance with the rule, it is to be confessed.
I still feel the rule might have lost its original meaning in the Pali. Not only is it now redundant, but the origin story also doesn’t make much sense. The other nuns actually agree to wait and send Thullananda to find out more about this robe material. So they made the decision together, and afterwards blame Thullananda.
In fact, the Pali rule itself could be interpreted in line with the other schools. It is only the origin story that introduces the “robe-cloth distribution” theme, which is not found in the others school.