Chinese government websites are also known to use translation software to generate (or aid in generating) English copy. This is almost surely the case for any source that uses "transit visa" in the context of visa free transit.

I will stop trying to help and let the 2 ambassadors handle it. I hope the 2 Ambassadors can bring something to the table and help settle it.

I've used the 72 hour TWOV 3 times, twice through PVG, once through PEK. Each time staying in China for 2 days. Though I haven't done anything like the OP, what the OP wanted to do is fine.

I've done;
LHR-PVG-KUL
LHR-PEK-HKG-SIN
LHR-PVG-HKG-SIN

The 3rd time had some issues with BA. At LHR check in, showed the agent all the paperwork and told them what I was doing. They checked the system and spent some time on the phone and it was all sorted out as fine. Then when I got to the gate for boarding, someone had changed something while I was in the lounge and it all had to be sorted out again at the gate.
Once at PVG, the Shanghai police had no issue with it. Just had to get someone to man the TWV desk.

A trip like SYD-PVG-MEL or LAX-PEK-SFO is not valid.
Something like SYD-PVG-xSIN-SYD or LAX-NRT-PEK-JFK is fine.

So the takeaway I am getting, 200 posts into this thread, is that if one tries to play games to exploit unclear diplomatic policies in foreign countries, they might occasionally run into trouble. Who'da thunk it?

Not quite. It's more like: if you wish to use TWOV in China you may encounter airline staff less experienced than others in interpreting TIMATIC.

I don't think you read all 200 posts in this thread if you are actually asserting there is anything "unclear" about the policy.

We can discuss the complexities of the policy and the language/translation challenges, we can agree or disagree on whether the agent at a station with direct flights to China should be expected to be familiar with the policy, we can posit on whether AA should reimburse the OP for his additional expenses based on their error.

It cannot be disputed that TWOV is both documented and publicized by the Chinese government for the specific purpose of allowing citizens of certain countries the ability to visit China for a defined period (24/72/144 hours depending upon region) without a visa. To state those who avail themselves of this policy are "play[ing] games to exploit unclear diplomatic policies" is not an accurate characterization.

Fair enough - but the "unclear" part in my mind seems to be that, 1) yes, the airlines aren't experienced in understanding it - and since they're the gatekeepers, they're the ones responsible for doing so, and 2) while the policy might be "clear" once dug up and explored over 200 posts by a group of experts, it doesn't exactly exist in a concrete form that can be used to convince an agent in a short period of time.

As long as the language contains the word "transit", IMO what happened here is always likely to happen.

On the contrary the airlines are experienced in understanding it since this type of mistake doesn't occur that frequently.

Before I knew what the policy is, I was in the "give the AAgent the benefit of doubt" camp.

Now I am firmly in the "it's very clear" camp. It didn't take 200 posts by a group of experts. It took only a couple of posts in this thread explaining what the policy actually is to eradicate any of my preconceived notion of the policy based on its name.

I don't think AAgent who made the mistake even bothered to read the policy but rather stuck to his or her preconceived notion of the word "transit."

Yes. The Chinese have set the goalposts and the rules of the game that pertains to access to their own country, and AA agents, in real-time and on their own volition, decided to move the posts and rewrite the rules.

Airline agents, especially GAs and supervisors working international flights departing from international gateway hubs, should know how to use TIMATIC properly and interpret its results.

It's not the responsibility of the customer to guess what might or might not seem clear to the GA, only to have the travel documents that are actually required by the countries to which or through which the customer is traveling.

Employees working at international gateway hubs, such as LAX, don't exclusively deal with international fights as they also work tons of domestic flights. There is not a dedicated "international" check-in counter at LAX. And BTW, employees at domestic airports have also to deal with international pax and it is at the departing airport that the VISA requirements are checked, not a the gateway airport.

As far as the proper use of TIMATIC, this is a case where COMMON SENSE could not be applied.
Anyone that has not read this thread looking at the OP's itinerary would say: This guy is going for 3 days to China, he is not transiting China. I find it hard to believe that people here think it is common sense to believe that the OP was in transit in China.

Why in the world would someone input JAPAN as the final destination on TIMATIC? That just "does not make sense". Period.

Ok, the itinerary was really allowed under Chinese regulations. OK. Understood!! The airport agent was wrong. Ok. Understood.

But how do you train an AA airport agent to act against what his common sense dictates.
The email from the embassy did not say "ENTER JAPAN" as final destination.
The OP's word, in the agent's eye, can be considered questionable.
What the EXP desk, your friends or FT say is something the agent couldn't see.

I think that this is a very particular situation in which correct training was not the solution. Like someone else has said, this can happen again, at least with AA.

Hope the OP gets some kind of refund. But I would not try this again, at least with AA or without a VISA.

If the rules don't define those important words, how can one safely conclude that any ticket onward to a third country is ok? :(

1. I don't think the OP was trying to "abuse" the system as the AA agent alleged. I don't think the OP was trying to "exploit" the system.

2. The OP did research and relied on FT info. which may be correct but was still risky, for obvious reasons. The OP was trying to figure out the correct rules and follow them.

3. Just because someone is allowed to board by an airline agent doesn't prove that they had a valid ticket(s) with respect to visa requirements. Just because someone is allowed entry by immigration officials in China doesn't mean or prove they should have been allowed entry.

4. The AA agent was not being over-empowered. The agent was trying to avoid AA being fined and also to protect the pax from being denied entry in China. The pax could offer to sign an exemption so that AA isn't responsible for the return ticket if denied entry into China, but would that cover any fine?

5. It is not easy reading any country's Timatic, esp. a non-English speaking country.

6. Common sense says a transit is not a final destination. It doesn't have to be defined.

7. There is a difference obviously between a non-stop and a direct flight, but not a big difference. For those who don't think so, then how would you enter info. on your immigration card entering SIN for SFO-NRT-SIN when asked to fill out "Point of embarkation?" Would anyone put NRT? I would enter SFO.

8. The explanation of China rules by many sources talk about the need to fly onward to a 3rd country. Taken in conjunction with China's TWOV policy, common sense would indicate the need to make a stop in another country after transiting China.

9. Yes, maybe the intent of China's TWOV's policy has evolved and so really it should now be called a VOA?

10. I think AA may provide some compensation to the OP as a "one time courtesy," but not because they think they were wrong. This is not just an AA issue. There are many UA examples of pax being denied boarding on itins. to China (both incorrectly and correctly).

11. Travelers to China using the TWOV policy need to be very careful, even if they are sure they are "right," especially these days given the current travel scrutiny of foreign pax to the U.S. Even if the chances of a traveler having a problem are just 1 in a 100, that's still very risky to me. :(

12. I wish the policy was more clear, but I'm not holding my breath for a clarification. I don't get the impression China really cares. :(

The OP presumably TOLD the employee to input Japan as the destination country. If the employee had obliged this simple request, he/she quickly would have ascertained that up to 144 hours is a legal transit.

What the OP said is irrelevant.
If you worked at a check-in desk, you would know that it is not uncommon for PAX to say thousands of things to get away with what they want. And you have to use common sense.
IF you worked at the check-in desk, and you knew there is a risk that your employer could be fined due to your actions, what would you do when the PAX is telling you something that ABSOLUTELY does not make sense to you (input Japan as final destination)?

You guys are too much :p