Okay... this is getting a bit academic, I suppose, but....
There is a basic paradox in what you propose, Paul.
"if a sudoku has multiple solutions" and "you can arrive at a unique answer" are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.
If one says, "This puzzle has a unique solution only if RxCy = Z," then what that tells me is that there is one clue missing.
If it DOES have a unique answer and you use that knowlege in your logic, fine - valid technique in my book.
But if it DOES NOT have a unique answer, and you make an incorrect assumption that leads to a unique answer that only applies based on that incorrect assumption, then your logic is invalid.
This seems analagous to my geometry class back in high school. If it can be shown that an assumption is false, then any conclusion based on that false assumption is not valid. And in this case, a false assumption is a given, no?