One thing I would point out in advance is that Frawley appears to use a reversed logic for reception. This may mean that all other astrologers who do not go chiefly by Frawley's book will have a different understanding of reception.
After further investigation I came across an interesting recent post on the skyscript forum (http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6776&start=60&sid=25dd5f6b0d4921118e16d8486707c3d4) mentionning that J.F. is not alone in his view of reception. There apparently was a medieval astrologer, Al Qabisi, who shares J.F.'s view on reception to some extent. Apparently too, Guido Bonatti, refering to Al Qabisi, disagrees with this view and comments that it is nevertheless fine for an "introduction to the subject" (funny that this is also more or less what you say of J.F.). These assertions seem to be confirmed by the following material. [1] Guidonis Bonati De Astronomia Tractatus X (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Y5OBbJ_OLuYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 143: "Alchabicius tamen uidetur uelle dicere, quod Planeta qui est in domo, uel exaltatione, uel in aliqua dignitate alicuius Planetae, si iungatur cum eo, quod ille, cuius est dignitas, dat et committit naturam suam illi: cuius sententiam ego non infringo, nec dico esse abiiciendam, cum ipse fuerit introductorius, unde potius est sustinendus, quam si alius dixisset, et cum ipse plurimum ualuisset in introductorio." [2] Alchibitius cum commento. Translation from arabic by John of Seville. (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Wunk47yU__YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 14: "Et si coniungitur planeta domino illius signi in quo fuerit: vel domino exaltationis seu domino ceterarum dignitatum in quibus fuerit: dicitur pulsare idest mittere naturam illius planete domini scilicet eiusdem dignitatis ad eum. Et si fuerit planeta in aliqua dignitatum suarum et fuerit iunctus alii planete qui habeat etiam partem dignitatis in eodem loco mittit ei etiam utramque naturam suam. s. et illius cui iungitur: et haec missio omnis vocat alcobol idest receptio." Sorry for not offering a translation but I'm too unsure about it. It would be nice if some latin expert could ascertain the meaning of these passages.