I understand what you are saying about the usage of "true" and "real" --
discussions about the relationship between these two, the epistemological
and the ontological, have flourished for centuries in Western philosophy.
But viewed in toto, this distinction is less clear in Indian philosophy as a
whole and I suggest that our difficulties in rendering "satya" in a Western
language arise from the inherent ambivalence of the term and the
quasi-conflation of epistemology and ontology in Indian philosphy. For
myself, the best translation practice is to translate contextually, perhaps
supplying "satya" in parentheses as needed rather than superimposing a
Western philosophical distinction which may not be present in Indic
languages.
In passing, if your understanding of Theravada exgesis is accurate, I wonder
if the reason why "satya" can better be translated as "real" is simply
because of the realist inclinations of Theravada scholasticism
Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge
PS: I hope this discussion does not put your arm to excessive strain and
discomfort.