To be fair, it is using interpreted code, which is clearly not allowed. He chose to build something that clearly goes against the terms and then he's hoping for an executive-level exception to the rule because "it's so cool". But if they give him an exception, everyone else will be pointing to how the approval process is inconsistent when they reject someone else's with some form of interpreted code.

So the question of Apple being at fault for not having "clear, comprehensive guidelines" can't really be raised.( In this particular case.)

And so the headline is a bit sensational.