But it's not, because there's no restriction on "all shapes." It doesn't say "some authorities go further and include as citizens all children," it says "children who meet a certain criterion." Your analogy isn't working.
But let's say you tweak it so it works. You have to admit that my version is just as valid as yours. Which means that the multiple courts who read Minor the way I do aren't "wrong," as you keep insisting. They just disagree with you.
The way you “tweaked” it doesn’t change that the definition was used in an exclusive manner. The only way the second class can be equal to the first class is by meeting the criteria used exclusively to define that first class. This proves without doubt the courts such as Ankeny are reading it wrong. Wong Kim Ark did NOT read it wrong. Extending the triangle analogy, they used a broader definition of “triangle” and characterized that definition with a completely different term to avoid calling or equating Ark’s citizenship with an “equilateral triangle.”