I mean, it's important to remember that the axioms of first-order logic are arbitrary. We could easily argue that the truth value of an empty group is undecidable, and that would better correlate to natural language logic.
The fact that we compact these edge cases into arbitrary truth values is just for ease of computing.
This is also relevant to the arbitrary choice of the 'inclusive or' as a default over an 'exclusive or', which most people use in natural language.
I have to interpret the question at face value, which may equate to natural language logic. I dont know the specific rules of any of these systems, which are obviously particular or wildly different from a layman interpretation. Most of the arguments seem to center around specialized conveniece rules (as you mention), which are eventually equated to the one true way to deconstruct meaning. At least, that is what I got out of this thread.