Question I would ask is, while I agree (aesthetically) with what I think his position is - when he sets up logical vs. ontological truth as competing models of reality, is he not setting ontological truth as "real reality," and then logical truth as "reality prime," as in, he has set up a figure/ground relationship that favours ontological truth, but appears to be arguing as though he is weighing them as complementary?

Maybe he's still setting it up after the halfway point? I don't disagree with him about the necessary conditions for transcendental truth, but the form of his argument seems to leave that thread to be tugged on.