If the update that you are referring to that "gives the artificer an effective spellcaster level" is the update in MoI, no it doesn't. That update only states "an artificer can qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements", that "an artificer’s caster level for his infusions fulfills this requirement", and gives provisions for how a prestige class that progresses levels in a spellcasting class interacts with the artificer's non-spellcasting caster level. It does not change the artificer's caster level into a spellcaster level, and it makes no mention of feats. In fact, it goes to great length to keep the artificer's caster level and spellcaster levels separate, as a rules blurb consisting of "Despite not casting spells, Artificers possess an effective spellcaster level equal to their class level" would have done the job nicely if that was their goal. Thus, this update does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue with crafting feats, nor was it intended to. I see no admission of there being a problem with the class, other than WotC realizing that an artificer might like to prestige, and essentially copy-pasted the warlock rules into the MoI for them.
I never asserted that artificers have a spellcasting level or that they are a spellcaster, quite the opposite, I point out quite clearly that if we are to go with the strictest RAW (i.e. semantics, the study of meaning) they certainly do not have one, despite their infusions functioning in all ways like spells. Nor did I ever, or will I ever, plead to not talk about things in detail. I would think that writing a three paragraph statement regarding the matter was a sign of that. If you you are referring to the line that I wrote regarding the mechanics of emulating a spell, I was speaking to the fact that "emulating" is poorly defined in the contexts of the rules, and thus difficult to adjudicate, and in the end it was ancillary to my point so I decided to not write on it. In the most liberal of sense a person emulating casting the spell actually casts the spell as a spellcaster. In the most strict of sense the person goes through the motions of casting the spell but accomplishes nothing, begging the point. Most likely the true meaning falls somewhere in the middle, but it is very difficult to tell and would require extensive research into other references of emulation in the rules, and again, it is besides the point as there is a straight-forward and rules-legal mechanism for the class functioning. If you would like me to write up a full post on the mechanics related to an artificer emulating a spell, I'm game.
As for 'the lack of text not proving me right,' all I can really say is... yes, yes it does. The presence of a statement that says the artificer gains a feat and the lack of a statement that lists the conditions in which they do not gain the feat means that the artificer gains the feat unconditionally, by the very definition of the word. There is no blanket rule in D&D that says 'if a class grants something you can't use, you don't get it' and there is no rule in the class that deprives the artificers of the feats, thus they have the feats whether they can use them or not. It is the same logic that allows us to say that by RAW characters that close their eyes don't instantly turn into pandas. Why? Because the game designers didn't include a rule that characters closing their eyes turn into pandas, thus they don't. The most fundamental tenant of RAW interpretation is if a rule is not present in the text then the rule doesn't exist. I pointed out for the benefit of others that the class doesn't have text backing up the unconditional granting of the feats, but as I said this is an unnecessary clarification, just like how we don't need a rule that says that "characters don't turn into pandas unless a rule says otherwise," because the absence of any rule to the contrary in a self-contained rule system precludes the need for a rule. Its fine if the author chooses to include clarifications if they think the rule is confusing, but it is not needed: even in the strictest RAW the bonus feats are granted.
As for the poor wording of Artificer, it really only stems from applying the strictest RAW interpretation, a casual reader would have no issue understanding the class, what it does, and how it works. The only possible mechanism for the artificer's crafting in the strictest RAW, Item Creation, and the intended method of an artificer's crafting in RAI are one and the same. From the standpoint of strictest RAW most classes are as poorly written as Artificer. Warlock, for an easy example, is actually broken when given the same level scrutiny: warlocks also do not have a spellcaster level and yet they have imbue item, a class ability they can never use because they can never qualify for the crafting feats, and aren't granted them as bonus feats like an artificer is.
In the end, Artificers have the feats and cannot use them, but they do not need to use them and instead use their Item Creation class ability. The feats are granted only to qualify the Artificer to make the item, and cannot be used normally. If an artificer gains a spellcasting class they may craft as normal using the feats. The class works fine even in the strictest RAW, and it doesn't even require referencing anything more than class itself (and the PHB if you aren't clear on what happens when you aren't qualified for a feat). That's better than I can say for quite a few classes. And in RAI, there isn't even an issue, because the intent is clear. Now, whether the class works the way people want it to work is an entirely different matter, but that is what house-rules are for. I find artificers to be decently powerful even with the minimum caster level rule, they just aren't the uber-gods that people desire them to be.
I realized after writing this that we are debating two entirely different things, you merely pointing out that in the strictest RAW you find the artificer class confusingly worded, which is not really something I can debate. I am debating that whether or not the RAW seems confusing, it is mechanically sound as written, and conforms nicely to the intended use of the class. I'll leave this here anyway.