blown highlights might well be the "proper" exposure . . . by your definition, expose to the right is 1/3 ev not overexposure? I'm confused, but i do understand that youre making the point that exposure in particularly critical with hi iso settings. I dont know if you ever shot velvia, but shooting high iso is more like shooting velvia, you have about 1 or less stops to get it right. At high iso's if you under expose the entire image you will pay for it dearly with noise and "grain" when you try to push it or "open" it up in post. . .

Shoot the proper exposure no matter what the subject and i think i understand your point. for that dog, with that light you shot +1/3 which youre calling "over exposure" again it might be semantics, but then you start talking about the final image and what was done in post after it was taken . . .Huh? That changes things too . . .

In any event, the way to describe exposure is to relate it to something, in your example it would have made everything clear to readers if you had said, "i choose +1/3 over THE METER reading because i knew it needed some more light, so i choose a slightly longer shutter speed by adding 1/3 compensation" - which may or may not be over exposure and in your case it is not, it is the proper exposure.