That's exactly the sort of interpretation I was looking for. I don't remember how to represent geometrical transformations as matrices, but that's really just a technical detail; one can understand your solution without it. That being said, I still don't understand your solution. Are you saying that any such pair of transformations as you describe has the desired anticommutative property, except for the exceptions? I don't see either part of that - the general claim or the exceptions.

My solution exploits the fact that in CD, C combines the rows of D, while in DC, C combines the columns of D. Here's the rest:

Yrg P or gur vqragvgl zngevk rkprcg jvgu -1 nf vgf obggbz-evtug ryrzrag. Gura PQ vf Q jvgu vgf obggbz ebj artngrq. Fvzvyneyl, QP vf Q jvgu vgf evtug pbyhza artngrq naq -QP vf Q jvgu vgf yrsg pbyhza artngrq. Fb gb trg PQ = -QP, jr whfg arrq gb svaq n Q fhpu gung artngvat vgf obggbz ebj unf gur fnzr rssrpg nf artngvat vgf yrsg pbyhza. Sbe 2k2 zngevprf, guvf vf nal Q jvgu mreb va gur gbc-yrsg naq obggbz-evtug cbfvgvbaf.

Rot13 don't work so good for specifying matrices!