Loquipments rulings and cost reductors

Recently on the Spanish community a question came up that: Can Regina Blake reduce the cost of a Palatial State?

There are already rulings that point to the answer being yes, mainly Therbold Realty:
"The reduction applies to equipments that are locations (eg. Palatial Estate). url=https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/wB6HHGzgFi4J class=""LSJ 20080107[/url"

The problem for me comes when British Museum and Danylo/Magic of the Smith gets taken into account.

According to the British Museum, you can also reduce the cost of loquipments with it, as they are considered equipments before entering play:
"Checks the card type in hand, reduction and unlock apply to equipments that are locations when in play. url=https://www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/79986-the-british-museum-london-and-pier-13-port-of-baltimore?start=6#106118 class=""]ANK 20220824[/url"

Getting deeper into rulings, we arrive at this answer: "If her special and TR both
> do so, then at the moment the cost is paid loquipment must be both
> equipment and location.
Yes."
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/XpZ6F53jK-c/m/EQWCLO72MbsJ

This means that loquipments are not a location in hand, ar not equipments in play, but for some reason they are both locations and equipments while being payed for it. This ruling isn't based on anything written on the rulebook, cannot be understood by reading the card, and therefore will not be understood by anyone unless we find a comment by LSJ on 2008 on a google forum.

Rules that cannot be understood from card text and the rulebook are a bad idea for the game, as it makes it obscure to understand and people just stop trying to understand the game altogeher. As it is right now, all judges will rule these interactions wrong unless they happen to have read a relating LSJ comment. This is not how judges should work, nor how the game should work.

So, the real question: is this ruling correct? What is the logic behind it? Is there something in the rulebook that can help us understand and explain this to other players?

And, also, seeing that Regina can use her ability on loquipments... can she partially pay the cost of loquipments played by other minions you control? Recently we saw that cards that your minions play are also played by "you", so it would makes sense for her to be able to pay it.

The thing which is strange here is the part where LSJ state that when paying, the card is both an equipment and a location.

And he never answer the logic behind this ruling.

If you have it, I think we would be happy to understand why.

EDITH :

Malone wrote:
> Does Marie Faucigny's special ("Non-weapon equipment cards cost her 1
> less blood or pool to equip.") reduce the cost of loquipment? I have
> always assumed so, but now I'm not sure. If her special and TR both
> do so, then at the moment the cost is paid loquipment must be both
> equipment and location.
Yes.