Our view is it's absolutely correct. You have to look at all the elements as a whole. Essentially, the way self-defence works now is there's the question of the perception of the threat. The perception must be subjectively held and that perception must be reasonable.
With respect to the question of whether the force used can justify the act, the question is both whether that person thought what he was doing was the right thing to do and whether was it the right thing to do from a reasonable perspective.
With respect to the front end, the perception, and the back end, the response, currently there's both a subjective and an objective component for both. We tried to maintain the combined subjective-objective in terms of the perspective of the threat, and when it comes to the response, we separate it into two distinct elements: the subjective intention to act for a defensive purpose, and the objective reasonableness of the acts that were ultimately committed. However, as you say, they all do work together.
My concern would be that if you make the perception purely subjective, then there's a purely subjective intention to act defensively. If the perception was unreasonable, then the need to act in self-defence was also unreasonable. I feel as though one side is purely subjective and the back end will be purely objective, whereas I think it's preferable to maintain a combination of both throughout the analysis.