Really appreciate the feedback. In response to your first question: Are they? This is one of the key questions. If you want to stick to Daniels then I = 5, T = 4, M = 3, E = 2 makes sense, and so Daniels' 65% would perhaps be the bottom end of zone 2? Nonetheless, if the intensity scale is used purely for aerobic training, and if this is deemed stop at 65% MHR, then you should log S+C as a 0. I do not know where Daniels got the number of 65% from, some science around this number would be great to see.
Some may suggest that training for orienteering encompasses other aspects, not just aerobic, but which also depend on intensity e.g. the lactate buffering/clearing system and muscular endurance type stuff. It is up to each person what they choose to stick to. This may boil down to the difference between training for orienteering vs pure running for some.
The Borg scale is not central to my report and you may have misunderstood; I never stated that it defines attackpoint intensities in any way. For 2 - 5 Daniels is clearly far and away the better system. Borg is merely used for comparison. Yes, you may consider it bullshit but some evidence would be appreciated. Reports on its (in)validity can be read here
The guy has done significantly more research than any of us.