Hi Scorpius.
I have to say it is so refreshing to see debate on this board of late verging towards quibbles over linguistic niceties as opposed to some of the confrontational posts of not too many months ago (... "here's a load of answers".."you can't do that".."oh yes I can and here's a load more to prove it").
I can't dispute your defence of the clue in question - and readily admit that I was originally wrong to criticise it literally as - once the intention finally hit me - it did make some sense.
However, I stand by my original assertion that a couple of clues (at least) had poor surface reading and / or dubious cryptic credentials.
In truth, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, in that I DID find this to be a great puzzle. My problem was that it did not give me quite the warm feeling of AGC-winning quality imparted by say "King" last year .. so I looked a little more closely at what did (slightly) disappoint me.
I can't be as totally forgiving as you (still don't like the way 37 reads even if it is an &lit), but given some offerings over recent months, this one definitely ranks high among the market leaders.
Bests
cJ