I apologize for bringing in the 'electrically joined at both ends' verbiage, simply because it has been removed from the code and is thus a distraction in the current discussion.
I believe that the point about switches being 'devices' and not 'conductors' is highly relevant.
Clearly a switch _sometimes_ conducts electricity, and is thus sometimes an electrical conductor. But code is 'specialized language'. The question is: does a switch 'count' as a conductor for purposes of 310.10(H). As an analogy consider the discussion of the neutral counting as a 'current carrying conductor', when is _always_ carries some current.
Back to the current discussion: when current can follow parallel paths _via_ a switch, does it count as creating conductors in parallel for purposes of 310.10(H). I would argue 'no' because your the individual conductors start attached together, but are _not_ connected together where they end (at the separate switches). The switches _conduct_ electricity but are not 'conductors' for purpose of code.
A counter argument: if you actually intended to arrange a set of conductors to share current to a load, in exactly the fashion that we all agree are 'conductors in parallel', but you connected each individual indirectly via a set of switches, then you could you 'get around' the requirements of 310.10(H).
-Jon