Addendum (yes, I go on forever)

Reading through the two analyses one difference is that JT was left in as a hand that would call the turn in version 1 and taken out in version 2.

I think if a villain with JT was playing correctly he would raise on the flop (as in version 2), but at these blinds the villain is likely to not understand this and simply call on the flop and pray.

My personal feeling is that I would decide to assume that the villain plays correctly as the conclusions that follow that assumption are likely to serve me better as I play against better opponents. If looking to draw optimal benefit from a given situation (benefits of actual reads, knowing players at these blinds suck etc) you would want to customize the ranges to what mistakes you know your actual villain makes.

In the absence of proof of incompetence I think it is probably most instructive, though perhaps not accurate, to assume the villain plays correctly.