I have no qualms with anything you posted, and generally agree. Up until April 1 of this year, thre has been a historical pattern, but there was no requirement for a bound delegate to vote for the same person at the Convention. The new rules seem to state something like that in the link you provided, but I can't find that wording anywhere else. And it isn't reflected in other R writings or sources. In the past, a delegate who chose to change their vote would be effectively ostracized from the RNC. They'd lose party funding, party support, etc. It would effectively end their career as a Republican, in most cases. But that was pressure being applied through financial means. Not a rule that they cannot break. One of the two factors that play into how Republicans choose delegates, is "Party Loyalty." With the entire GOP machine slowly turning against Trump, that might mean that at the RNC a "loyal" vote might be a vote against Trump. No matter how this plays out, the tiger is eating its tail. And the GOP will not survive this. What will fill that vacuum?
Dude. That site I provided links directly to the source. There need not be wording anywhere else, and it doesn't have to be reflected in other R writings or sources, because the link is quoting the official rules of the RNC, supplied at the very top of the link. Here. Note the title of that document. The Rules of the Republican Party. Not The Historical Patterns of the Republican Party, not Pressures to be Applied Through Financial Means of the Republican Party. Rules! And yes, most rules generally must be backed up by coercive measures, such as pressure applied through financial means. But the rule- as laid out by the RNC and currently still in place- is that bound delegates are bound delegates. And should they unbind, there are not only huge penalties, but explicit directions in the rule-book to ignore that inconsistency! And remember, that quote you just posted from Slate is what happens in the case of a CONTESTED convention. Not uncontested. Contested: bound delegates vote with their bound choice first round, and then in the likely event of a second round, they may unbind. Contested. Look man, I hope to God this is a contested convention for so many reasons. I think it'd be politics porn for everybody who's into that sort of thing (me, you, NPR, etc), it'd bloody the candidate who made it through, it'd open the window for a third-party Trump situation which would further divide the Republican vote, it'd maybe- maybe lead to some heartfelt soul-searching on the Republican side of the spectrum (just kidding). But don't let's go around telling people that even if it's uncontested, there's nothing to worry about and voting doesn't exist until the generals. It's just not true.
Not so. Each state part gets to draft their own rules; that is why it's so difficult to know how many delegates each candidate is or will be awarded so far. Some states' delegates would be released after round one, some after round two and so on. However, the candidates themselves have some say in who the delegates are, so many will be voting their conscience (or lack thereof) anyway, so being released might not mean too much. It gets very complicated very fast. It's almost as if they didn't really plan for this to actually ever happen :).... and then, when the first round of voting finishes, everything we have talked about gets thrown out, and an entire new set of rules comes in. Nobody is bound to anything they did previously.