The reason why I did not mention Imber was not because I wanted to conceal it, but because:
1. I did not want to appeal to authority.
2. I did not want creat an impression that I was assembling an army, which would not be fair.
Imber has a link to this conversation and from that point, my conscience is clear.
The problem with contrary to the fact is:
1. The sequence of tenses, since it would have to be nuncupavisset as I observed at the beginning and which Imber confirmed as well - LATER!
2. Nisi feels like a limiter to ne ... quidem, instead of being part of a protasis. But this thought is expressed in the other thread and I'm practically quoting it here.
3. This is possibly not a strong argument, but in unreal conditions, there is usually a verb in both the protasis and apodosis. Here we have something like "he would not have named him an heir unless in the third degree". It was an unreal condition, it would have to imply (in the unfolded form of an unreal condition): "he would not have named him an heir if he had not named him an heir in the third degree". Which sounds a bit off, wouldn't you say?
Consider this: "I wouldn't have taken any place, unless I had trained." AND "I wouldn't have taken even the third place unless I won the fourth". The first is a normal unreal condition, the second has a logical problem identical to the problem we are discussing. What the second is really trying to say is "I didn't even take the third place, I only took the fourth.", which is not a condition at all and is instead a case of ne ... quidem ... nisi. As in "ne ullum quidem locum adeptus sum nisi quartum."
I think its obvious that the flow is ne ... quidem ... nisi.
Ignosce mihi si quae vitia scribendi inveneris, nam iPodo meo usus sum cujus claviatura non tam commoda est quam illa computatri mei.