Philosophy experiences similar inexhaustible interpretations and debates.

Debatable -

But I think the real question is whether Anno is being dishonest or excessively modest about his background knowledge, or if some other contributor to the work impacted the meaning.

Textual interpretation is difficult to pin down just to an author’s mental states. If a text can be effectively used to advance an idea, even one the author didn’t intend, people are liable to do so.

There’s plenty of value outside of authorial intent that we throw away if we narrow acceptable interpretations down to ones the author plausibly or likely intended.