I think it is best to stick to the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2. You can make DO mean anything you want by redefining nidanas, but what is the point?
For example people who subscribe to contemporary theories of DO as a purely "mental" process don't like the fact that birth, aging and death are described in biological/physical terms, and for them it's an "inconvenient truth". But it is what it is, so get over it.
Not according to the DO suttas ( see SN12 ), which straightforwardly describe one nidana arising ( or ceasing) ) in dependence upon the previous one. There are two basic modes of conditionality in DO, sequential ( "When this arises, that arises..") and contemporaneous ( "While this is present, that is present..." ). I see nothing in the DO suttas which supports the idea of one nidana "shaping" another.
I still haven't seen a theory of DO which holds together coherently, while conforming to the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but I suspect that nobody else does either - despite all the fancy theories.