"Does not lock for the block" vs rulebook

There are five cards that say that the vampire does not lock for a successful block

• Atonement
• Read the Winds
• Guardian Vigil
• Justine, Elder of Dallas
• Durga Syn

The problem now is, the rulebook states since 2019

If the action is blocked, then any card played to perform the action is burned and the block is resolved with these two simultaneous consequences: the blocking minion is locked and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat). If an effect ends the action before the block resolution or one of these two consequences (such as entering combat), neither consequence occurs.

On a very strict reading of the rulebook, that would mean that these three cards also stop combat from happening.
I think I've read this question before, but I can't find the thread anymore.
But I think we all can agree that these cards do not, in fact, stop the block combat from happening. I just want RD confirmation—be it anew or from an old thread—and the reasoning why the rulebook does not apply here.

On the rulerbook in the "important terms in the game" have this:

The Golden Rule for Cards: Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.

this is why these cards avoid the lock part of blocking combat

DavidR wrote:

On the rulerbook in the "important terms in the game" have this:

The Golden Rule for Cards: Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.

this is why these cards avoid the lock part of blocking combat

There is no contradiction. As quoted by Hobbes, the rulebook explicitly states "If an effect ends (...) one of these two consequences (such as entering combat locking the blocker), neither consequence occurs.

To apply golden rule, the cards would have to read "do not lock for the block, combat still ensues".

humm i see, lets put mirror walk on the talk too then, that card adress only one of the consequences too

the "neither consequences occurs" must be there for some other reason that i cant see right now