That’s a legitimately interesting take. Can chinese civ be split if the secondary entities aren’t civs? I think they irreconciably incongruous with the other civs in the game, tho the game treats them no different than the other civs. the devs want you to think of 3k as civs.
If the secondary entities aren’t similar in type, then is it a split. I think the game treats them the same. If they were chronicles-esque civs, I might be more inclined to adopt this view.
I can’t agree, but this is an interesting line of reasoning.
It seems you knew, before any concrete information was presented in regards to what would exactly would happen to chinese or the civs that would be introduced, that chinese wouldn’t be split, and even after the logical contradiction of that was presented to you, you doubled down. To say this more explicitly, all we knew at the time you claim to have known this wasn’t a split, was Cysion saying it wasn’t a split.
Therefore I can only conclude your definition of what a split is, is whatever Cysion says a split is.
Consequently I emphatically agree that our definitions vary, however I must contend that you being an MP player does not seem to be what is giving rise to our incompatible definitions. 
180AD Han China represented by Chinese
220AD Han China represented by 3K civs, multiple civs to make a finer point on this
300AD Han China represented again by Chinese
But Cysion said it wasn’t a split. IDK what to think.