BUT Motorola had the original information to work from. not a interpretion of the manuals available. they had the real thing.
Nonsense. They did the exact same thing: define the 68k ISA on paper and then build the chip. They didn't throw together a bunch of gates, looked what it did and then wrote the documentation...
And as already mentioned, we do have the "real thing": lots of Amigas with 68000, 020, 030, 040 and 060 to look at.
And btw, Motorola failed at implementing what they had written beforehand which is why there are the silicon errata documenting where they failed for which mask revision of the various 68k processors.
All operating systems, all compilers, all assemblers and all software are written abiding by the _documentation_ of the 68k ISA.
the only difference was IF motorola replaced their ASIC and went FPGA with a 1:1 copy of their design.
Since Motorola didn't implement any of their 68k using a synthesisable HDL, impossible. And if they did, they would just "interpret" their own ASIC, to use your shrewed terminology.
THEN I would accept "implementation" as the 080. not a single bit is a real copy of it.
Even if you refuse to accept that you are male, you won't be able to have babies. And nobody ever claimed the 080 was a "real copy" of anything. It is a real and very powerful implementation of the 68k ISA.