No, it's merely a clumsy attempt at having the best of both worlds, with the best of intentions in mind - on GL's part, at least. It's Rinzler's integrity that was compromised in this case (being the one who put his name to a grandiose publication advertised as being in-depth and 'historically accurate'), and even then it's understandable, with LFL over his shoulder. Doesn't change the fact that information was deliberately presented in a false context. Just how crucial this particular falsehood was to the study of the development of the story is a matter of debate, but my point still stands - any other such convenient quotes (which, BTW, aren't even dated in the ESB & ROTJ books) simply can't be taken at face value, unfortunately. The well has been poisoned.