It’s funny actually cause I understood it a very different way 
I understood that the term “pure intent” has been reserved specifically just for that which is actual, i.e. having nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings – and “intent” refers to the agency-aspect of actuality, viz.:
RICHARD: Thus, as an agent and/or an agency can be someone or *something * then, in regards ‘pure intent’ (where agency needs must be outside of the human condition), that agency-association – which association is what the word intent had, in that context, for the feeling-being in residence in this flesh-and-blood body circa January/February 1981 – definitively refers to *something * which ‘he’ described as [quote] ‘a manifest life-force, a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe’ [endquote]. [source]
In other words, the “intent” of “pure intent” is that which “must be outside of the human condition” – i.e. not from a “feeling being wanting to (eventually) live in the actual world”, whose intent would of course be inside of the human condition.
As I understand, the entire AFT site was searched for the word “pure intent” and it was replaced instead with “sincere intent” or “naive intent” where it was referring to a feeling-being’s intent, for clarity of communication and to maintain “pure intent” as strictly that which is actual, i.e. “a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”.
And it’s particularly relevant in the context of something like Richard writing that “to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent … as in, to be that benevolence and benignity as a flesh-and-blood body only” (source). Because if “intent” is a feeling-being’s intent then it would necessarily be absent when said feeling-being is absent. Yet when actually free, one is that pure intent. Therefore pure intent must be something that is actual.
It being something that is strictly actual seems odd and weird at first as feeling-beings can and do experience it, but that is how it can serve as a connection between one’s naivete and the actual world. And the agency-aspect being strictly actual as well is odd since ‘I’ as a feeling-being can clearly intend to and have agency to go towards the actual world. But it somehow works out to use it this way anyway haha.
It is strange because pure intent is both the connection (that is actual) and all that one is when actually free (which is also actual). But of course when actually free there’s no connection anymore because the feeling-being has totally self-immolated. But it’s still pure intent… and there it seems to be somewhat synonymous to the purity of the actual world.
Maybe I can put it like this: what pure intent is, is the purity of the actual world as manifest via a flesh-and-blood human body being apperceptively conscious. This purity-as-human-consciousness is all that one is when fully actually free. Further, as all that actually exists anyway are flesh-and-blood bodies being conscious, and this is happening whether a given flesh-and-blood body is actually free or not, this purity-as-consciousness exists and is happening even whilst a body is being parasitically inhabited by a feeling-being. As such, that feeling-being can allow that purity-as-consciousness to increasingly enter their sensorium, which serves as a guiding light to allow that feeling-being to increasingly let themselves let go of the reins, to experience that purity-as-consciousness more and more via increasing gradiations up to an excellence experience, then the temporary abeyance of a pure consciousness experience, and eventually a total and permanent self-immolation to allow that purity-as-consciousness to fully flourish and experience itself as that purity in and of itself, in other words to be the universe experiencing itself as a flesh-and-blood human body.
In other words: a quality of the actual universe is its purity. This purity is everywhere all-at-once. This purity manifests as purity-as-consciousness in a flesh-and-blood body being conscious. As such purity-as-consciousness can always be tapped into, and there is the experience of it being everywhere all-at-once – but what is everywhere all-at-once is, strictly speaking, the purity of actuality itself, not the purity-as-consciousness (which a flesh and blood body is basically experiencing only their own (with caveats that a ‘common consciousness’ appears to be possible)), but the purity-as-consciousness is essentially the same as the purity as it is that purity manifesting in a particular way – as consciousness, rather than say a perfectly hanging dew drop at the end of a leaf or a river perfectly flowing along its well-weathered contours.
Nothing within the human condition can ever be this purity-as-consciousness, as the human condition is not actual – but the human condition is set up to allow a feeling-being to experience it. They can and must have a sincere and naive intent to allow it to happen, and once they do they can experience this purity-as-consciousness as well. As such this naive intent is intimately related with the purity-as-consciousness, and enables it to be experienced (it is always happening but not always experienced), but it is not the same category of thing.
The questions that remain then are whether “pure intent” is being used in some cases to refer to the purity of actuality itself or the purity-as-consciousness in particular… e.g. is it (source):
[Purity-as-consciousness] is a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe.
or:
[The purity of actuality] is a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe.
The latter reads more like it is a property of this universe itself, manifest as all the matter in the universe, the very rivers and trees as well, which sounds correct as how else could humans have evolved and gotten to where they are without it? The former is reading more about this purity for flesh-and-blood human bodies in particular, which is more directly relevant for becoming free, but more specific – yet it too would be originating in the “perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”.
What do you think @Vineeto? I would say it is vital to have the terminology be accurate here, and maybe something should be changed of how we use the words, but at the end of the day, maybe not 
Cheers,
Claudiu