Since you brought it up, JO 7110.65S §5-9-1 absolutely does concern what altitude ATC may assign an aircraft when vectoring ato intercept the final approach course
By the way, we've been violently agreeing on .65 and ATC's requirements. I was just nit-picking about using .65 to justify Pilot behavior. I'm just spending my time looking through Government sources on what the Pilot should do. This weekend I'm probably hitting the ACs.
In praticality, unless you're a good math whiz in the cockpit while flying, and know the surrounding terrain/airspace. It's best to follow the profile as charted. The aforementioned LAX ILS 25s have produced many violations for pilots following the GS too far out. Especially on hot days where true altitude is higher than indicated altitude. The GS doesn't move, but Ontario's traffic was closer to the GS as their true altitude was higher on a hot day and caused separation issues. (which was the LAX traffic's fault, not the Ontario traffic's fault)
I'm of the opinion that if I make a statement, I've got to back it up.... which is why I'm still looking. *grin*