Mr. and Mrs. JA, please answer my questions.
As to the definition of ONS vs. EA/PA, I think that Road is using to strict a definition. One can have a ONS with someone you know. I've done it, before I was married. There was no emotional connection at all.
If one party is in a relationship, all ONS's are also PA's. If neither are in a relationship it is just a ONS. Thus, in the context the Adam's are using terms EA and ONS, they are synonymous. Here, I think that Road is making a distinction without a difference.
The fact that Mr. JA also defines it as a EA is, more a matter of perspective and not so much one of disagreement. All ONS, except for prostitution based ones, involve flirting and some communication between the parties. Again, in the context of a committed relationship, the betrayed could accurately describe it as an EA since that type of communication should not have been happening. However, that would be the loosest and broadest definition of an EA and it but would be vastly different from a more accurate definition of an EA wherein the parties were expressing love for each other, etc. This particular label, in light of the facts of this case is not essential. Mr. JA may describe it as an EA, from his perspective, which is valid from his perspective.
When it comes to the true nature of an affair, be it, EA, ONS, OEA or otherwise, the party actually engaging in it is the one who can tell you the true scope, assuming they are being truthful. In short, Mrs. JA is in the best position to know whether it is best described as an EA.
Mrs. JA may describe it as an ONS, which is valid. There is not, however, a requirement that they agree on labels when the event that they describe is the same. It is not like she has not told him what happened. They agree on the facts or rather, he accepts the facts that she has told him. To find any meaning in the fact that they label the undisputed facts as ONS, EA/PA is ridiculous. If, however, they were not in agreement on the facts, then you would have a point. In short, if this were a matter of Trickle Truthing, then agreement on the terms would be needed, but until all of the facts were known, no term could be properly assigned. Here, the facts are known, thus the terms are superfluous.