Yes; your paraphrasing about covers it. Nicely done, if I may say so. Let me reemphasize that it was a minor point overall, but still one I thought worth mentioning (in passing), if only in a half-sentence.

I meant to say parentheses and just confused them with brackets (not a native speaker, or writer, for that matter). The point only being that a post in a "meta content - subject level content - meta content" format which sandwiches your important content in between meta remarks loses some of its saliency, parentheses or no.

You are doing fine, all the aspects we're discussing are minor nitpicks. There is no need to worry about the correct tags, or even to overly fret about the amount of meta that's along for the ride. Insight trumps in-group signalling. My remarks were about on the same order of importance as advising a really long post to include a "tl;dr" summary at the end. I often ready mostly the beginning of a post and the conclusion, to judge whether the rest is likely to be worth the time. In your case, that had the somewhat funny result of wondering what the hell your title was referring to, since all I saw was meta, hyperbolically speaking. So I read more of the middle parts to supposedly fill in the gap, imagine my surprise when I encountered a thoughtful and interesting analysis in there. So while it was my laziness more so than any fault on your part, that's why I brought it up.

tl;dr: Your post is fine, now go write new posts.