That the EBT descriptions are less detailed (and are actually not entirely consistent) is not proof of qualitative or significant difference. Your interpretation seemed motivated to find and emphasize differences, as you’ve s/t asserted, contradictions. This is not uncommon in modernist analyses, for instance the theory of “sutta-jhana” detailed by Bucknell, Stuart-Fox and Griffiths contains major patent biased assumptions that condition their findings.
Bringing up the issue of kaya is further indication of an interpretive bias, as that topic has been discussed at great length (in SuttaCentral, DhammWheel and probably elsewhere) with no definitive proof of either the “physical” or the phenomenological grouping forms of interpretation. One point rarely mentioned is the glaring fact that the “physical” body is a relatively modern scientific concept, and in Western thought related to the “mind-body” problem which goes back only a few hundred years. By definition, the objective or scientific body is experienced only by external (“objective”) observation, can not be subjectively experienced. Even with an intensive body-scan and “whole body awareness”, who can experience directly the status of their gall bladder, cuticle on the left fourth toe, the cardiac sphincter, the subscapularis muscle, etc. and all together vividly. Direct “bodily” experience can be only phenomenological, i.e. as sensations arising (function of the nervous system), as accessible by the proprioceptive nervous system, and limited to the scope of conscious focus – that is, the whole of what’s in the focal field of attention comprises the “whole body” in awareness at that moment. It’s conceptually very much along the lines of “a body of phenomena” fabricated by the mind into conceptual unity, and along the lines of deconstruction of phenomenal experience into the classes of khandha or elements (dhatu - earth, air, fire, water as sensate characteristics).
One bit of evidence that there’s commonality in the experience of jhana across the various (serious) interpretations is that from the perspective of knowing “hard” jhana, as in, say, Pa Auk Sayadaw training, other forms of describing (and experiencing) true jhanic states are readily accessible, understandable and available to experience. (“True” meaning genuine absorptive jhana rather than intense raptures of piti or other emotions that are often mistaken for jhana.) On the other hand proponents of “soft” jhana-s often resort to dismissing the forms beyond their experience as extreme, as accessible only to special people or by virtue of extraordinarily difficult training.
As it does appear that you prefer the methodology of finding contradiction, interpreting lack of detailed comprehensiveness as “hiding something”, etc. – so obviously intentionally conditioned. You’ve every right to interpret so. Asserting that others must agree or be delusional, however, gets a bit aggressive. A thicket of views is just that; recognizing and rising above it is among the most central of the EBT (e.g. as in the Aṭṭhakavagga).