Okay, so before Vatican 2 the only error concerning a person that would render a marriage invalid was if:
1. You thought you were marrying Jane, but instead (never having met Jane in real life[?!]) you married Beth, who is an imposter impersonating Jane [???!!], or
2. You married Jane believing that she was a free woman, whereas in reality she was a slave [?????!!!].
Do either of these cases sound like the kind of thing that comes up often in a suburban American Novus Ordo marriage tribunal? And yet those are the only two errors about marriage that would render a marriage invalid according to the pre-Vatican 2 code of canon law?
So you are a theologian now?
I don't read it that way at all.
The "person" includes everything about the person.
I did not list all the exceptions from the 1917 code, only the one I thought applied to deceit.
It is clearly difficult for laity to understand Canon law, which is why there are Canon lawyers who study it for years..
As I have said several times: talk to a traditional priest you trust.