I do see your point better now, thank you. You're right, of course. Our visual perception of the space can't cause things to become occluded when they weren't

I do see your point better now, thank you. You're right, of course. Our visual perception of the space can't cause things to become occluded when they weren't before, and vice-versa. So maybe that ends up being a side-effect of an implementation detail, and in their zeal to explain how, to achieve a realistic-feeling FOV, they had to change how light bends through space, they ended up harping too much on this side-effect as a way to describe what they meant. I think the question is simply whether a better transform exists using just the 2D image. If one exists that feels like a not-too-distorted wide-angle view like our natural vision, then people should be using that. If this turns out to be the best way to achieve that currently, and it has a slight side-effect of a change in occlusion, then this seems like a good thing.