Dr. Davies got a little carried away in his rhetoric :-)
//This is where Norton gets tricky with us. He posits another solution to the equation ...
Norton didn't posit this as a solution, it is a solution.
//This is baffling. It’s bizarre to stitch two different solutions to an equation
Norton never stitches together two solutions. I don't know if Dr. Davies is unfamiliar with a function defined using a case statement, but there's nothing Frankensteinish about it.
//but in fact the top equation is not Newtonian at the apex (clearly since it moves despite the absence of a force there).
Alas, Dr. Davies has missed the biggest delight of Norton's Dome! The ball can nondeterministically roll off of Norton's dome and yet still obey all of Newton's laws :-). It sure looks like it wouldn't be--after all, how can the ball start to move in absense of a force?
But at time t=T, the ball isn't moving yet. Its not even accelerating yet. So at time t=T its obeying Newton's laws. An at every time before and after that it also obeys Newton's laws.