Heh. I knew this would come down to the definition of “included”.

But it doesn't. The definition of "included" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether his statements are true or false.

Comey made two statements on this point to Congress:

1 - "I remember being told that the group's view was it was significant enough and consistent enough with other intelligence that it ought to be included, but it wasn't sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the intelligence community assessment."

2 - "So they put a brief summary of it in an annex."

Statement number 2 is true or opinion. A summary of the dossier was put in an annex, and whether that was "brief" or not is opinion, and therefore cannot support a perjury charge.

Statement number 1 does not depend at all on what "included" means, because he is not making any statement about what was actually put into the body of the ICA. What he says is that he "remember[s] being told" that other people had a view that it wasn't sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the ICA. He's not making a statement that it was or was not "included" in the body of the ICA. He's saying he was told that people believed that it wasn't corroborated enough to be in the body of the ICA.

There's no way they can ever prove that statement was false. The truth or falsity of the statement is not contingent on whether the dossier was or was not "included" in the body of the ICA, because he didn't say whether it was "included" in the body or not. He only said that he remembers being told that other people believed it wasn't sufficiently corroborated enough to be included in the body of the ICA. To demonstrate that this statement was false, they'd have to prove that no other person ever told him that. That no person ever communicated to him that other people believed those things.

Actually, it's even worse - because his statement was prefaced with "I remember being told" those things, which makes it almost impossible for his statement to be falsified. Because people can remember things incorrectly. He never asserted to Congress that he actually was told these things, just that he remembered being told those things. There's no way that a prosecutor can prove that he was lying when he said that, because the truth of the statement depends on his memory - not whether the conversation actually happened.