I think my best response to that would be to drop back and say that I think we should keep in mind the likelihood (I think a certainty) that Epicurus was aware of the need to, and constantly did, swap back and forth between talking in terms which are primarily "logical" at times, while at other times focusing on the "practical." I think he would say that doing so does not make him inconsistent but acknowledges the limits of logic (the need to always tie it to observable evidence) and the ultimate primacy of the canonical faculties given by nature.
From this, and also from, I think, Episode 22 of the Lucretius podcast, that there is mention of "proper logic" or "proper reasoning", I remembered this podcast:
Which I have listened to, and can recommend. I like that she's very clear about logic being able to provide "valid" arguments, but not necessarilly "true" arguments, particularly that an argument can be valid but not necessarilly true. She does, however, make some distinctions about deductive logic and inductive logic that do have some prerequisites of truth or imply a high likelihood of truth for certain arguments, but I don't recall the specifics.
Has anyone heard or read about her or this topic? I had never studied formal logic in school so this was completely new for me, and I think it, at least, allows you to order your ideas better while presenting an argument, which doesn't necessarilly imply a discussion.
She also has this book about critical reasoning that I intend to read after finishing DRN: