I wonder whether we are actually all on the same side, but debating these issues for debating's sake. LOL.
Anyways... First, when talking about when the dealer is obliged to count out chips that have been bet, let's not get distracted by Rule 21. I followed the history of how Rule 21 came to be, and I believe it is clear that Rule 21 deals with chips that have NOT yet been bet. In other words, the "countable stacks" relate to stacks of chips still "behind" a player. This is consistent with the philosophy that chips already committed to the pot belong to the pot, and potential callers are entitled to know the amount to call. However, if a potential caller asks the dealer "how much does that bettor have left behind", the dealer should NOT reach behind and give a count -- those chips have not been bet, and as long as the stacks behind are countable, it's up to the potential caller to assess how much a player has "behind" based on visual inspection of the stacks.
I'll stick to my guns here and maintain that as a matter of procedure, if a dealer is asked by a person who's turn it is to act to count a wager (i.e. actually bet) made in that particular round, that person should be entitled to a count without exception. (And yes, according to Rule #41, he is screwed if the count given is incorrect).
Back to the question of when folded hands become dead:
However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.
I would say, based on #2, a hand that has not hit the muck, is still live.
(my emphasis)
In my view, it is telling that the Rule says "at
management's discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game". The rule would suggest a different intent if it had said "a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and is live". The fact that someone can retrieve a hand and rule it live
at the management's discretion suggests to me that ruling the hand live represents the exception, not the Rule. In the situation originally brought up by Spence and in my example, as TD I would NOT exercise that discretion in those cases, and rule the hand thrown forward towards the muck as dead, and I think I would be entitled to do so under the Rule.