I don't think I said any of those. The official hierarchy is a neat compact description of formal lines in an organization, not less but also not more. At most I think any formal org chart represents a vast oversimplification of the intricate graph of relationships that exist between people in any company. There are things about a company it can describe well (like who is in charge of performance reviews for who), and things it cannot describe well (like the nebulous role of individual popularity on company decision-making, or in distinguishing between productivity differences between individuals on the same "level"). It is also almost always limited to the company itself and excludes any factors outside it like competitors or suppliers, despite those factors sometimes being more important to company decisions than its internal organization.

In short, my take is that the "classic" hierarchy is a useful but limited tool. It is not sufficient in the slightest to describe how a company makes decisions, yet too many people treat it as if it is all you need to know.