Others have said it - he just wanted to have sex and she wanted something more. He was insensitive in pushing forward without seeing that she wasn't enjoying it, paying attention only to his own gratification. That makes him a bad lover. Which is entirely a matter between the two of them, and not anyone else's business. I don't know what you think her true "intent" was. She had to know this would at the very least embarrass him and very likely ruin his reputation.
So far as the "complexity" goes, if by that you mean that consent was somehow ambiguous here, I would point out that she had every opportunity to make it simple and unambiguous. It's called saying "no," "I don't like that," "I'm not enjoying this," "can we slow down" or words to that effect. I was always taught that "no means no" which struck me a bright line that is easy to comprehend. And I note that the moment she did finally say no, he immediately stopped, which tells us what we really need to know about Mr. Aziz. If, however, we're going to push this further by insisting that we read non-verbal cues to determine consent while in the heat of passion then we may as well get our gratification through porn and masturbation and make all our babies through artificial insemination.
I agree with the feminist author of the WaPo piece which says the entire narrative of this incident is counter-feminist. It's saying, be silent and passive, hoping your lack of enthusiasm will be understood as non-consent, and if it isn't, you can play the victim afterwards.
I'm not really going to go far on what I might actually believe happened between the two because I only have what is presented at face value. As far as resolution to this incident goes, I believe the appropriate intervention was what happened (text exchange, not Babe magazine article), and we've seen media reports here of studies which show that someone bringing attention to bad behavior induces a behavioral change. I think individually that was the appropriate thing to do, what happened, and probably appropriately made Ansari more aware of reading and navigating social cues.
I think your reasoning is perfectly fine for defining criminal assault. From the available information, we could say that his actions reflect those of a reasonable person. Not perhaps a very self-aware or intuitive (at least in sexually charged situations) person, but someone who well knew that assault was wrong and able to act appropriately when direct information was provided to him.
I do not think that should be the end of our discussion. I do not think, also, that this story ought to represent what women should be encouraged to do. I find the story, while insufficient to render judgment on its accuracy, an account that even if fictitious represents of a very troubling area of human behavior that quite commonly goes this way and is definitely influenced by society. I'd rather not engage in discussions on what intervention or message we should strive for unless there is good understanding of the problem.
I think the reason this has been so controversial is that the normal human mechanism (and a healthy one) is to try to imagine yourself as a participant in the story you've heard and anticipate your actions. I think that the vast majority of people would say that, if they were treated with unwanted sexual advance, they would clearly and directly communicate a "no". Unfortunately, there is a vast overestimation of someone's likelihood to communicate this, and when people face trauma overall, freezing response, dissociation, fear of inciting further aggression, self-doubt, etc. are common occurrences. It's hard to project that you would allow a trauma to occur that you are capable of stopping when you are making that projection when you are safe and not confronted with all of these experiences.
Personally, I believe that striving for better involves supporting a potential victim's power and authority over their own experience to help them be more likely to exhibit more direct communication, and I also believe that people need to hear the message that they can be in danger of initiating unwanted sexual activity with another person despite no desire to violate and no challenge in taking appropriate action when confronted with clear communication that actions are unwanted. To me, this is not a path to explicit content for all sexual activity. I believe that would be foolish to expect and contrary to the healthy exploration of mutual sexual encounters. Instead, I would hope for a healthier attention to observing the experience of a partner.