Hmm.. WAF
first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual
oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things
from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements
referring to specific parts of a work is more like
half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information
regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple
reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion,
obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and
interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should
give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much
of it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first sentence,
so I'll ignore it for now. My example is 100% in an OOU perspective,
by the definition given in WP:WAF. Yes, it doesn't include any
non-fictional information, but that doesn't make it IU. Could you tell
me what part of WAF says you have to include non-fiction details in
order to make something OOU? I've just re-read the page, and I only
see one mention of "out-of-universe information" (which I think is a
confusing name, since OOU information and OOU perspective are quite
different things - non-fiction information is clearer), and that's
just to explain why it is important to include plot summaries, it's
not related to anything about how to include plot summaries. The
section is headed "Presentation of fictional material" - it is quite
clearly talking about fictional material, not non-fiction.
For clarification of my first sentence, take a look at
User:AldeBaer/sandbox. In my opinion the current wording of WAF is
somewhat self-contradictory wrt preferred approach to writing about fiction.
The fiction/non-fiction terminology is in wide use to distuingish
between fictional and non-fictional texts, yes. But using it in place of
IU/OOU in WP:WAF would be incorrect, as in-universe/out-of-universe
denotes primary source information vs secondary source information.
Maybe the latter would be a more appropriate terminology?