To me this looks like a simple definition problem, of
a researcher that was unbiased by science-conventions.
Whereas Rawls defines North and South in respect to an imagined
magnet in the core of the earth, the rest of the world defines
north and South in respect to a probe (magnet) in the field of the
earth.
So a "Northpole" in Rawls documents is what we today label as "Southpole".
This we need to keep in mind, if we look at Rawls work.
To better understand Rawls position, I propose to append "geographic"
to all of Rawls poles.
What amazed me is, that in a textbook "Basics of electronic engeneering"
there was no hint how a N or S-pole is definded.