tldr; TRP is a statistical model to predict how the majority of women behave. And it's why we can claim AWALT. A single contrary example doesn't invalidate the model.

TRP is a Model
Understand that TRP is a MODEL for human behavior. And just like any model, it is an approximation of the way that parts of a system (humans) interact with each other (relationships). This model is used, primarily by men, to understand and predict women's behavior. The intent of TRP is to help men navigate the Sexual Market Place (SMP) and give them the skills necessary to establish and maintain whatever kind of relationship they desire to have.

Normal Distribution
Take a look at this Galton Board video, each individual ball (woman) does it's own thing. But taken together, they form a pattern. The majority of the balls wind up near the center. Similarly, the majority of women will have predictable behavior when reacting to a given stimulus. Thus, AWALT.

Statistical Outliers
Witnessing or thinking up some example of a particular woman behaving in a different way than what the model predicts DOESN'T INVALIDATE THE MODEL. What it means is that the particular data point is a statistical outlier. Like one of the balls that go way to the left or way right in the Galton Board video, that single ball (the example in question) doesn't mean anything significant in the overall pattern that all of the balls make together.

AWALT is saying the statistical probability of a random woman behaving in a certain way can be predicted by the RP model with a reasonable degree of accuracy. To put it more simply, most of the women (all the balls in the middle) will behave similarly. So much so, that you can treat all women the same, until proven differently.

So when people claim that "I witnessed this certain interaction, therefore not all women are like that.", the claimed example doesn't invalidate the model. It is only a single data point.

Semantic Arguments
As an aside, getting into semantic arguments with the community doesn't further the cause or help our brethren in any way. We are attempting to communicate a CONCEPT here, so getting into semantic arguments about the fitness of analogies here is not helpful.

Although this isn't a semantic argument, this is how some people come across when they improperly argue semantics or nitpick analogies here in TRP.

Summary
Try to understand the big picture here. TRP is trying to communicate a model for human behavior that will serve as a guide in the majority of your interactions with women. Rather than finding fault with analogies, try to figure out the concept the poster is trying to communicate. Remember, a single contrary example doesn't invalidate the model.