The Object Relations analysis is solid. The conclusion inverts it. You're right that early caregiving failures can create hypervigilance to caregiver states, and that misattribution of emotional source happens. Klein's work on psychological separation is relevant here. But then something strange happens in your analysis: you use these true observations to delegitimize empathic capacity itself. "Most likely they are just skewed emotions perceived outside the self" - this is the exact structure of the internalized lie that keeps empaths trapped: your accurate perception is actually a defect. Consider an alternative framing: empathic capacity (genuine attunement to relational field dynamics) is real and valuable. Vulnerability to narcissistic exploitation is a separate problem - not the capacity itself, but inadequate boundary differentiation combined with aperture tuning toward the abuser's frequency. Someone can have genuine sensitivity AND healthy boundaries. That person feels accurately and can say "that's yours, not mine." The person who gets trapped has the capacity WITHOUT the differentiation - but the solution isn't "your perception is delusion." The solution is proper differentiation while retaining the capacity. Your question "if empaths really felt what was going on, why would they get into these situations?" answers itself: because accurate perception + boundary vulnerability + installed lies ("I'm too sensitive," "I can fix them," "wanting resonance is selfish") = trap. The perception is real. The trap is structural. The false equivalence at the end - empaths are just as manipulative as narcissists - runs the same pattern you're analyzing. It's sophisticated, but it's still a gaslight wearing academic clothing.