@ revcollector. Thanks for the additional clarification. "We're not in Kansas anymore."
FWIW, I try and do my homework on this stuff, and (ironically) the term "genuine" is not explicitly defined on the PF website's glossary of terms. On their FAQ page they offer this:
Genuineness: Over the years since production, stamps have been faked, forged and counterfeited. At times, this may be noticeable to a seasoned philatelist but may not be to trained eyes. The Philatelic Foundation can detect problems from outright fakes all the way to stamps that are genuine but have been altered.
I think they meant "untrained eyes." But more to the point, this doesn't define the term as you guys have done.
I think it's fair to say most everyday collectors (those with the untrained eyes) would never reasonably expect genuineness and soundness to be mutually exclusive. Case in point: Let's say Mr. Z unwittingly buys a reperfed stamp that was advertised as "genuine," with no mention by the dealer or in the listing of this modification. In fact, let's say it was bought from one of these online sellers who labels every lot with "make sure to examine the photos." Mr. Z doesn't see anything but a nice stamp because he is of untrained eye(s).
Mr. Z later realizes that the stamp was reperfed and attempts a return, arguing, "This is not a genuine stamp, it's been reperfed." The dealer rebuffs, insisting that it is genuine per the definitions provided above. Maybe if the buyer said "it's not genuine because it doesn't have genuine perforations," that might sway the argument in his favor. Or maybe not, per the definitions provided above.
I'm not arguing your definitions. Rather, I'm making a case for how "genuine," as a measure of a stamp's bona fides, might end up being quite inadequate.