But if it is circumvented then it wasn’t effectively controlling access; therefore, this isn’t applicable.

A savvy lawyer might argue that’s not what’s meant by effectively, but it’s at least a little ambiguous.

The ambiguity is resolved by the explicit definition provided in the section: 'a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.' So the word 'effectively' isn't very effective here.