As per the title, it was more an alignment with what I believe Ockham wanted to say, and it is difficult to say something that Ockham wanted to communicate from my point of view without the historical context. But I admit that my message was probably badly formatted. 
To begin with, I wanted to explain what I think Ockham is not and give a very narrow overview of 'who said what'. Secondly, I extrapolated Ockham's words from the original text to create a link between the message distorted by 3 centuries of exegesis and what he had actually said, and then give it an inherited context and subsequently project it into contemporaneity with 'less is more' heuristics, in between I wanted to insert something like 'epilogism' into this microscopic monograph to give a little perspective on discernment and anti-historicism in decision theory, with the application of the razor.

Secondly, I think the distinction between 'don't add entities' and 'try to eliminate entities' in decision-making is crucial. Although we are discussing minute details, simplification in decision-making is an improvement, provided we assume well-founded priors. For further examination, see any of Gigerenzer's papers, which I find brilliant.

I did not want to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' principles. Only to distinguish what we can take as Ockham's Razor from what seems to be, but is not. And I would like to add that, perhaps, the fact that English is not my mother tongue penalises me a little on expressiveness and style of language, so if there are mistakes and confusion, I take responsibility and apologise now.

I also wanted to thank you for the constructive comment. I will try to do better next time.