You're also making unreasonable assumtpions about the burden associated with not lying. You don't have to completely solve the miscommunication problem in order to do something about it, and even if you were to try to completely solve the miscommunication problem, it would not require you to include a million caveats. Basically you could solve the whole problem by not making analogies.
Lets go with the common aphorism 'all models are wrong, but some are useful'. As it puts forth there are a large number of useful models, but wouldn't that fall under your term of a lie since it's not the truth of a situation.
The problem with reality is it feels no need to be explainable.
I think I meant to post this to the user above you....
I guess my point is, as someone who has done a ton of work in this area, there are a million choices one can make when choosing what to visualize, and the lines between truth/reality/lies/accuracy can get muddled. A lot of it depends on context, use cases etc. For example, a star high school teacher may show one of Drew Barry's animations to their class and use it as an example of the limitations of visualization. A creationist could use the same animation as evidence of "God's perfect design".
What I'm understanding from the article and from your arguments, is that unless you can guarantee that a piece of work 100% represents reality in all its complexity, it does more harm than good. I'm politely disagreeing, I think it's better for these works to exist: "Perfection is the enemy of done".