Georgina,
Be honest, did you already carefully read the 57 pages including the 59 references? At least you might decide whether you prefer your "uni-temporal space" or Einstein's mathematical construct that contains a depending on each other elements like time dilution, length contraction, relativistic addition of velocities, a space-time with no distinction of future from past, and many related paradoxes.
With Claude Channon, I disagree with your attempt to reconsile: "'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process."
Of course, it isn't "counter-intuitive that each observer sees 'things' differently". Strictly speaking no observer can "see" something remote happen. What you are calling "uni-temporal" is just an assumption being logically justified by reprocity reason.
It seems to me you indend belittling the fundamental flaw by calling it (merely?) a (murky?) matter of categorization.
I agree on that the reason for the paradoxes can be understood - as partially explained by Klingman - as incorrectably linked to a basic misconception. Nonetheless, the paradoxes of SR remain terrible and perplexing.
Eckard Blumschein