As to the role of play being a model for prey chasing, I will grant the actions are similar. And Shadow can chase and kill a squirrel, though I don't think he always eats it. Prey instinct is there.
And, yes, we are all animals and Shadow chasing me and vice versa can mimic play he might have with another dog in a game of chase. I also understand the point being made that Shadow following me for resources might be a sublimation of the prey drive and it might have been hinted in that direction when I said that working for me involves less energy than running and hunting for hours, when it comes to getting food. But it is still rewarding. To borrow from Anne, dogs do what works.
Just as the dog you were helping with seemed focused on other dogs and people because the dog wanted to play. You got the owners to play with the dog, which the dog found rewarding. More rewarding than focusing on the other stimuli in the park.So, the undesired behavior of focusing on and charging at others extinguished, somewhat, in the presence of what? Let's say it together. A greater reward. Why is that the better explanation? Perhaps because it has been proven over and over again, ad infinitum, for decades with clinical, experimental, and empirical evidence. Papers and labs so full of minute detail as to put most anyone to sleep, reading data sets, etc.
As for Skinner precluding thought, it was not a disproof of thought, but that thought was not necessary to explain the process of OC.
You had a dog that was initially startled by the noise the first time you pulled out the futon. Next time, no startled reaction, the dog moved out of the way. But, I think, you have generalized from instance. Not every dog will react the same way. Same with my dog and the lawnmower. At first, the noise was startling. And then, he would move out of the way. And it would be a couple of weeks between mowings. Next time, he would pick a spot on the patch I had just mowed and plant himself there and relax. But another dog might not have that response or evolution of response, even. Perhaps it's a bit of a red herring. But he used to go nuts at the sound of the trash truck, twice a week. No reaction on our part to support or reinforce or even try and punish against the reaction. Eventually, it went a way. Perhaps different sounds had something to do with it. Perhaps the smell of the garbage truck is the link. So, I wouldn't say that he learned so much from the introduction of a novel event. The smell of a garbage truck (seeking resources) might be worth pursuing but the exhaust of a lawnmower, not so much.
Again, questions brought up in your theory can still be answered by OC, or behaviorism as a whole. And you haven't provided proof. And quoting someone who's outspoken intent is to "dismantle OC" doesn't count as proof. And, since much of the "energy" theory rests on shaky and unproven aspects of QM, there is not likely to be documentable, measured proof any time soon.
It also helps to remember that many "problem" behaviors in a dog are survival skills. Prey chase and catch, guarding, noticing differences in the environment (which may affect resources, though that may not always be the "conscious" thought of the dog) lead to survival. Jumping in each as a greeting, even if, initially, it also works as a launch against prey. Survival skills. These are done because, as a species and a unit, it has been rewarding (leading to survival) to do so. And we are asking the dog to do something different or sublimated, changing the effect or direction of their behavior. The only reason the dog will do so is because doing it our way is more rewarding. If it is not, they will ignore us.
So, in my opinion, the "failure" of OC comes from misunderstanding the process, rather than a failure of the process. I might ask, ala Spiritdogs, "what are you reinforcing?" The most difficult part for me, at one time, wasn't reinforcing what I wanted. It was accidently reinforcing what I didn't want.
I use food treats because Shadow finds that rewarding. My BIL has a Blue Merle Aussie who finds it most rewarding to herd, cut, and hold a ball as if it were a sheep. She loves that more than food treats. Different dog, same reward path. Breed may have something to do with it. Cassie is purebred Aussie. Shadow is mostly Siberian Husky, mixed with Lab.
My understanding of non-linear theory is that, first, that's a misnomer. "Equilibrium" is rewarding because it leads to stabilization of resources which may require guarding activity.
Also, what's missing from NDT is the fact, an undeniable fact, that some dogs have behavioral problems stemming from neurological problems. That is, the root is pathological or even ideopathic, i.e., chemical inbalance, genetic mutation of neurology, etc. In which case, any training method is going to suffer until meds are introduced. But even in the state of madness, the OC principles still apply.
When faced with direct questions, you often reply with quotes and historical trivia of how other "great" minds faced similar opposition. Many people laughed at Einstein, and some still do. So, it may be part and parcel of proposing new theories, especially ones that run counter to everyone else's experience.
So, what does the dopamine study really mean, at this point. Perhaps it means that it was wrong to include it or place much weight on it in the reward chain. Either we have not delineated all the chemical compounds in reward chain, or we don't understand the reward mechanism, and really, we're talking about why one behavior developes prominence over another. "Reward" is the nearest concept word to what is happening, kind of a shorthand description.
So, my dog following me you describe as a version, or maybe, if I can put words on your mouth, a sublimation of prey drive. He doesn't have to kill me to get resources but he is still following the path to resources that would normally be expressed in prey drive. That doesn't change the fact that it is existentially rewarding. You haven't disproved OC, merely called a rose by another name.
As for limits of OC in behavior mod, I would have to say a true discourse on its effectiveness or apparent lack of effectiveness needs a full understanding the initial conditions of the problem. "My dog barks at other people and I can't make him stop with treats" doesn't say enough.