On the question of how far to go, I'll happily refuse to provide ID... I'll not be committing an offense by doing so, either, regardless of whether or not it turns out they have PC to make an arrest.
As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that an officer could have legitimate PC to arrest when in fact no crime has been committed, but that's what you get with BS rulings and bad law making.
TLS is basing their statements on a case out of, I think it was Houston, where a judge treated the non-applicability section as defenses to prosecution as opposed to, well, non-applicability. If you go back and look at where the non-applicability section was restored, though, you will see that the legislature restored the non-applicability section from being in the statutes as defenses, so it seems abundantly obvious to me that it is intended to function as more than simply defenses to prosecution. In my opinion the judge that ruled contrary was obviously and egregiously incorrect in his assessment - legislating from the bench. It seemed apparent to me that he wanted to railroad a conviction, rights and constitution and logic be damned. Hmm where else have we seen that? Yep, CJ Grisham case, among many, many others I'm sure.