Did not look up rule 10 (any MLB rules for that matter) but will concede you are correct in that rule application.
How about at its core the game says the offense is to score runs and defense is to get 3 outs. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
Throw out stats and MLB stats completely and even "how" an offensive player reaches base safely as the rules provide different ways to do so.
The offensive side of the game simply says get on base then - score runs. ROE then is one of the ways to do exactly what the game calls for.
To discount ROE as irrelevant and insignificant to what the game calls for at its very core seems ...well... completely anti-rules.
To imply it has no relevancy in stats is an opinion and even one it seems the vast majority in the stat world agree with you on.
Interesting though is the same stat world that rejects ROE has no issue with including and using the equally similar (100% defense induced) HBP stat to make their OBP/OPS and all other offensive contributors valid in their multi-level advanced stat formulas? Why is that and or how is that any different than ROE?
Don't know just yet but will deduce the average # of times a MLB player is HBP per season is either in-line with and may even be lower than the # of times a player ROE. It certainly is not a huge statistical difference as a stat relative to ROE yet there is HBP in the mix of all stats formulas used to factor in offense. How come?