I think you missed the presence of the word "doesn't" in the sentence about Redbeacon.
"Readbeacon DOESN'T require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done."
I didn't miss it! The sentence is actually ambiguous :) I read ONLY as a change in sense!! The sentence reads "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."
I actually read this as:
Redbeacon DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT the CONTRACTOR who I hire to paint a room SHOW UP in Redbeacon attire; ONLY (THAT THEY) DO WORK through Redbeacon[1], CHARGE what Redbeacon dictates[2], and FOLLOW Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.[3]
It's clear that this isn't what you meant. But not so clear that I didn't misread it. Rules against disintermediation, arbitration of disputes, terms and conditions, are all things that make contractors seem more like employees...
[1] i.e. not disintermediate by connecting directly off-site and cutting out redbeacon
"Readbeacon DOESN'T require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done."