I thought we just had this discussion? I sympathize with your confusion, but there is simply no way to define the characteristics of the various circulating forms of Drosera capensis with regards to the width of the lamina. I have several forms of varrying width. First you need to free yourself of the concept of a "typical" form of D. capensis. There is no typical form in this highly variable species. As I have said before what a person regards as "typical" is purely an internal concept as it now stands. Until someone publishes a cultivar standard, with descriptions and photos, there is no way for anyone to be sure that they have the most narrow leaved form possible, or even the widest.
In my collection, the most narrow leaved form I grow is smaller overall in proportion compared to what seems to be the most commonly grown variety, but there is no difference in the way the lamina are held. I think that the most common form in cultivation is what most people refer to as "typical", but the distinctions between them are not very major: one is smaller reaching perhaps 4 to 5 inches in heigth and this is less commonly found. The common variety may reach about 6-8 inches. The difference width of the leaves between the 2 is less than half as great vs the wide leaf form which has much shorter leaves that are nearly double the width of the commonly grown form.
Drosera capensis 'Albino' is a registered cultivar, and it conforms in my estimation to the commonest form in both size and lamina width, although lacking the red glands, and with a white flower.
There are 2 all red forms I am aware of: one is closer to the wide leaf variety, but all red in good light. The other is markedly different: the petioles are much longer, and the lamina are held distinctly more erect, in width it is similar to the commonly grown variety.
Details of size implied in the "Giant" forms should be rejected, since cultivation techniques and growing conditions vary from grower to grower. I have yet to see any D. capensis that I consider genetically "Giant" in an of itself. I have had "Giant" forms produce average sized plants, and small varieties become quite large with good cultivation.
Finally, there are many other forms besides the ones you mention, although I do not cultivate them. Allen Lowerie lists a whole slew of them on his seed list, all probably demonstrating some distinct character from the commonest form.
This same reasoning also applies to the range of forms to be found in Dionaea: without a central reference there is no way to intelligently compare or discuss these different forms much as we would all like to be able to do this.
So, logic dictates that until such forms become registered, all attempts to discuss these variabilities are in vain. The answers won't change, because they cannot change, and there is no "authority" that can state otherwise: not I, or The Savage Bible, or any PhD taxonomist. Until someone creates a standard of comparison, such a standard does not exist. Without such a standard, we have nothing to compare our plants to, and opinions as to what constitutes a "narrow leaf" are just that: personal opinions.