In literature authorial intent is kind of bugaboo. There're whole branches of criticism that ignore the author's role in his work entirely. Further, literary figures aren't prone to answering probing questions about their work.
But role-playing game authors are more accessible. They write rules that are intended to be used, discussed, interpreted, tinkered with, and modified. They'll talk to gamers, and sometimes they'll answer questions.
So I really don't know if, in role-playing games, more credit should be given to a role-playing game's author's answer to a question or to a gifted amateur who cleverly interprets the words that author wrote.
I expect this will be more of an issue as the site's popularity increases, but this made me think of it. Other relevant questions include this one and, tangentially, this one that includes a link to an author's forum post.
Andreas Rönnqvist's point is taken: An author rarely controls his work after it's been submitted to a editor. That's understood. But I can imagine scenarios wherein Comment wars ensue, some lining up behind the Word of God—who says that's not the text's intent or that the text is being misunderstood, taken out of context, or was changed after submission and here's what it originally said—and some lining up behind the text itself.
If an author answers a question about his work, should that answer automatically be the right answer? If an author claims that he didn't intend a rule to be interpreted the way it's being interpreted and explains his intent, is that sufficient to end the conversation?