I think your rewording and what Shadowstripe has argued is likely the intent that the defend is meant to be against the attack. However, based off what wording we have currently the Defend action is not tied to being used against the incoming attack damage. Hopefully based off comments on the KS and messages sent to the Letters Page we can get a ruling on what is supposed to happen.
Although not specifically tied to the incoming damage by the wording of the ability, it is tied to the damage by the game effect of Defend, which states the defend is applied to the next damage taken. Since the next damage taken is the potential damage that triggers the ability in the first place, it is applied to that damage.
My response is still the same. The intent and wording aren’t aligned for that to the only reading.
Thanks for the discussion, folks. At this point, (as Powerhound alluded to ;-) everyone is expressing the same points and we really just need to hear an official answer, so let's wait for that. :-)
Greatly appreciate everyone's civility and respectfulness! :-D
So um... Has anyone submitted this question to the Letters Page?
I did
But if more people ask it, maybe it's more likely it'll be answered?
Never hurts to have more people asking. Just answering that I had done so already.
Oh, yeah, I got that – didn’t mean to imply anything else! 
I mean, you were answering the actual question. 
I was just pointing out that other folks should ask even though you had, as I got the impression from catDreaming’s question that they weren’t planning on asking if someone already had.
I also posted it shortly after the link to the Letters Page was posted here.
Well... it seems as there has been a tweek to the wording of Defensive Deflection.
To put it suscinctly, the change is now you roll your single Die as a Defend against the incoming damage and as an Attack against another target (other than the orginal source of the damage).
I see this as a move in the right direction, but it results in another problem... namely that after being Defended against, the Attack being deflected is potentially more powerful than it was before it was Defended against. At its most extreme, the deflected attack could do 12 times the damage the initiating Attack would have done (12 damage deflected Attack from a 1 damage initiating Attack).
Of course this can be fixed with a house-rule that a deflected attack can't do more damage than the initiating attack, but the problem is still there for those who go with the rules as written. Still, I count this as a move in the right direction over all and while I may still see the issue above as a problem that should be ironed out, others may not see it as such. Either way, I think we can call this matter mostly settled (as it is simple enough to fix if one feels the need to do so).
Let me formulaically show what that looks like to me:
T = X - R
Y = R
Incoming damage X
Outgoing damage Y
Taken damage T
Rolled deflect R
It’s still fuzzy, I’d rather see a wording like:
When taking damage, roll your single power die ones, using it both as a defend against the attack and as a counter-attack against the one who had attacked you.
I'm satisfied with the official change to Defensive Deflection. It's fewer words, simpler to implement, and still accomplishes the same general flavor.
Besides, is it not comic book-like for some guy to completely absorb a blast of energy, before unleashing it back at a significantly increased power?
Just for other people this is the updated text of Defensive Deflection
>
> When you would be dealt damage, you may roll your single [power] die as a Defend against that damage and as an Attack against a nearby target other than the source of that damage.
No, this is supposed to be a deflected/redirected attack, not an absorbed/enhanced attack.
While the two are superficially similar, mechanically they are quite different (as would be the physics that would explain both, in comics and in RL).
What you are suggesting would be more like what Bishop can do when he absorbs an energy blast and then uses that extra energy to boost one of his own attacks afterwards. This is supposed to be more like the redirected attacks that Jedi are known to make when they reflect a laser blast away from themselves to a different target… or when the Wasp shrinks out of the way of an attack so that someone else (likely a minion or other villain) takes the hit aimed at her. With the Jedi or the Wasp, no energy is being added to the redirected/deflected attack, but with Bishop, the Attack is adding energy as a Boost to his own Attack (the Empowerment ability would best reflect this sort of Defense with the Boost being used on Bishop’s next turn to enhance his Attack).
Very few Superheroes can redirect and enhance an attack against them… they either redirect the attack or use it to enhance an attack of their own.
But, like you said, I am satisfied with this change. The vague wording that lead to three different interpretations is gone and if one wants to limit the damage deflected to a maximum of what was Defended against, it is easy enough to house rule it. The wording may not be as perfect as can be, but it is acceptable and workable for however you wish to play.