1) Not really. You wrote "To help meet this demand, built directly into the WKO+ software program are a series of power-based training levels, or zones." A Google search will provide the source.
2) If I sit on my trainer and ride at a constant 83% of FTP: I have an average 83% FTP and an IF of 83%. My statement follows from the 2 papers that appear in the search. I will leave the details to the interested reader.
It seems you keep stumbling over your own words.
1. A Google search will also reveal that was the first, last, and only time I drew that parallel. The reason (to answer swampy1970's question) is that, for many people, use of the term "zones" implies that one should tightly constrain their power to a narrow range, something that is not only difficult to do, but likely counterproductive over the long run. (Note: this is a point I've made many, many, many times before....as again, even a cursory reading of my writings would reveal.)
2) That would be, by definition, a level 3 ride*. Because it was done on a trainer, though, the IF was a bit lower than is typically the case, i.e., 0.83 (not 83%) instead of the more typical 0.85-0.95.
*Also from the article you mentioned:
"While the system is based on the average power during a workout or interval effort, consideration must also be given to the distribution of power. For example, average power during mass start races typically falls within level 3, but races are often more stressful than training at level 3, due to the greater variability (and therefore higher peaks) in power. Similarly, due to soft-pedaling/coasting, the same average power achieved during a hilly ride or group training session will not reflect the same stress as the same average power achieved during a completely flat ride or solo workout. In part, the variability in power is taken into account in defining the various levels, especially levels 2 and 3 (training at the higher levels will tend to be much more structured, thus limiting variations in power). Furthermore, there is obviously an inverse relationship between power output and the duration that power can be sustained. Thus, it is axiomatic that power during shorter training sessions or efforts will fall towards the higher end of a given range, whereas power during longer sessions or efforts will fall towards the lower end of a given range. Nonetheless, a workout consisting of, for example, 30 min of cycling at level 1 (as warm-up), 60 min of cycling at level 3, and another 30 min of cycling at level 1 (as warm down) would best be described as a tempo training session, even though the overall average power might fall within level 2."