If that's what flipping means, then flipped cities never had the lack of city tile production, only traded cities did.
I am convinced from a previous post that they found this bug intolerable after the One World Beta. Flipping mechanism through religious/cultural/colonial pressures would work similarly to peacetime city trade in either case, there was no military takeover that called for a piece of code that does population/building reduction and city tile worked re-assignment that apparently prevents the city-tile yield loss from happening.
One of the reason why this specific piece of bug went unfixed for so long is that for many players, you will rarely ever see them or care too much about it. If you had sold a city to an AI civilization and they suffered from lack of tile yield, it wasn't the player's concern. But, if someone had beta-tested a run of Portuguese cultural game where they intentionally conspired against Zulu cities to flip to their influence only to find out that they had the same bug that kept flipped cities from working city tiles, that would be the first thing to fix. Since the flipping mechanism relies on basegame code, fixing the basegame would fix the problems they saw popping up frequently in One World.
And yeah, some hapless writer saw flipped/gifted cities and probably didn't think too much about how CIV in the present state don't even have flipping mechanism. To me, this is the strongest evidence that there is an expansion. I mentioned in another thread that this specific problem went unaddressed for so long, there must have been a reason why they were compelled to address it after being reported as a bug for more than a year. It suddenly turns from a nuisance from a headache if and only if you rely on a culture/colonial/religious flipping mechanism to expand your borders.
Also, for people who think flipped city is another way of saying trade/gifted, a "flipped city" was a real thing in Civilization IV and was part of many cultural player's strategy, it's an actual term for a game mechanism that was dropped in Civilization V. Because it's an actual term that was used to describe a situation that happened all the time in IV and never happens in V, I have never heard anyone with past experience in CIV calling city trades/puppet/annexation that. It is not a "descriptive" term people use fluidly to describe anything else other than cities changing ownership through soft power.
