TL;DR - the aTbRef notes are correct but I don’t think the underlying assumption are clear enough and thus the confusion arises. Will fix.
Edit: actually, a few procedural points re notes [sic] were wrong and I’ve fixed then - see my second post below).
Re-reading the linked notes, the reader has assumed comments about notes also apply to adornments. Although I don’t think that’s what my notes say they aren’t intended to confuse. I’m on the road in Prague for Hypertext 2017 and without the aTbRef master file but have made a note to review and clarify these issues.
As things can change, I’ve re-tested (v7.1.0) and the notes are correct except for one point. A 'picture adornment, created via dragging or pasting an image to a map view, stores the image in
<image> and not
<rtfd> in the source TBX.
My understanding is the original design intent was that adornments didn’t have any text ($Text), just a title ($Name). However, users found the app design still allowed users to add $Text, e.g for hidden comments about the adornment. But $text is adornments is not displayed in the main view, i.e. on the map
Images dragged/pasted directly to the map form ‘picture’ adornments. The picture data is not stored as part of text be separately. A normal adornment can’t be converted into a picture adornment nor is the reverse possible, due to the way and image adornment is created directly in the main view.
Testing, it appears you can add pictures to $Text of both normal and picture adornments, but as $Text is not displayed you don’t see that image in the map view.
To copy the picture in a picture adornment you copy/paste the adornment. If the source has a title or text that too is copied. The title of the newly pasted copy is the same as the source (on ’ copy’ suffix unlike with a copied note). So if you do use titles for your adornments (useful for finding/selecting them) you should rename the new copy and or/delete any $Text.
I hope that helps.