[bestgenman]

I’ll add what I know… the system works with verification signals returning to the controller.  In other words, when you tell the pin to go to the locked position, you are going to activate a switch that reports back to the controller that the pin did actually extend.  Some worked with magnetic switches, where a magnet was mounted to the roof, and others used reed switches embedded in the locking ram body.  It is my opinion that the best plan would be to remove the locking cylinder from its bent mount so that it is not touching the slide at all extended or retracted.  That would let the pin go ahead and move and report back to the controller that it has moved. You wouldn’t have locking on that end of the slide. If you wanted it to lock, you’re going to have to re-weld that threaded mounting surface plate back into the correct position.  I know welding inside the coach sounds like a dangerous unwanted activity, but I think you could cover everything up enough to keep the interior from the getting damaged.
When you think about the operational scheme, you will find that there are limit switches reporting back to the comptroller to verify a complete operation. For example, when you initiate an extend function the first thing that happens is the pins retract and a switch closes causing the next step, which is extend rams,  and when they are fully extended, a limit closes indicating full extension, then the locking pins extend and a limit closes indicating locking which….and so on.  I don’t mean to be overly redundant here, however, these systems can surely confuse a person.
The bottom line here is, you need that limit switch closure to initiate the next steps. If you eliminate that ram you’re still gonna have to have a switch to tell the system to go on and work. Now, it may be that the switches are in series since there are two rams.  If that were the case, and I am not sure about that, it would be easy  to eliminate that ram and switch wiring.  
I hope this answers your questions….