I think the idea is that POST creates a record (and in theory fails if that record already exists). I guess the commenter above is saying that if you inverted that (fail when the record doesn't exist, return the record if it does) it would be similar to QUERY? Not sure if I agree with that, but PUT's return semantics are a bit vague.. it often returns partial or combined records, or just a 200 OK (with or without a response body), or 204 No Content for unchanged records (with or without a response body)

It's clear what POST returns, so... perhaps QUERY is more similar to it in that sense?

The existing mechanism to get QUERY semantics is a POST that encodes the “fetch parameters” in the body and the response contains the fetched values. You then out-of-band document that this specific use of a fetching POST is idempotent.

This is literally expressed in the document in section 1: Introduction. They just want to take that POST request and replace the word POST with QUERY which also means the server is intended to assure the request is idempotent instead of needing that documented out-of-band.

For some reason the RFC focuses on idempotency, but then says it's explicitly intended for enabling caching semantics. Caching a query that mutates visible state doesn't really make sense, and like you point out if you just want idempotent modifications PUT already has the relevant semantics. I guess we haven't learned our lesson from making the original HTTP semantics super squishy.

Essentially correct, QUERY is safe, like GET, not merely idempotent, like PUT. Safety implies idempotence, but not vice versa.