I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same thing, if you always only use the >= criterium.
My way seems more flexible though, since you can use it with >= or >, or 2/3 majority over FD requirement, and still get sane results.
I also think my way is simpler, from a high-level point of view. By removing the §A.6.3 from the middle, you get pure Condorcet. Adding the FD-comparison to the end result of that is fairly easy to reason about, assuming pure Condorcet in itself is sane. Keeping §A.6.3 in the middle where it is now, and only changing > to >= as you suggest, I don't have a model in my head to understand all the consequences.
Regards, Thue