The trajectory of the actual flight was suborbital, but the planned trajectory of the flight involved burning all the way to orbital insertion (hence the "orbital velocity" being on the flight plan). Once again, velocity is a vector, and "orbital velocity" means "a heading and speed suitable for orbit."
By the way, I agree that they never intended to complete an orbit, just that they intended to get into (and promptly out of) an orbit. IFT4 did that, for example.
After IFT3 failed to achieve orbital insertion (probably because a leak caused it to run out early), SpaceX announced that not only was the plan to not get to an orbit, but also that they had achieved orbital velocity. They claimed both things!
Both of those claims seem to be lies, and it is also logically inconsistent to claim that you never wanted to reach orbital velocity and also that you got there.
You are overlooking the easier explanation: they used "velocity" in the more colloquial sense meaning speed, not in the vector sense. Suddenly everything is logically consistent.
And everything matches what they said, what they filled with FAA prior to the fight, etc.
By the way, I agree that they never intended to complete an orbit, just that they intended to get into (and promptly out of) an orbit. IFT4 did that, for example.
After IFT3 failed to achieve orbital insertion (probably because a leak caused it to run out early), SpaceX announced that not only was the plan to not get to an orbit, but also that they had achieved orbital velocity. They claimed both things!
Both of those claims seem to be lies, and it is also logically inconsistent to claim that you never wanted to reach orbital velocity and also that you got there.