So the way I see it is that we're all seeking balance. While the Light side seeks balance for the benefit of others, the dark side seeks balance for the benefit of self.
There are different ways of interpreting what might be in the middle. Does it mean complete neutrality? Or does it simply embody the ebb and flow from one side to the other. And in one person, what does that actually mean? Is it kind of like saying "on Tuesday I'll be a Jedi and on Wednesday I'll be a Sith"? Is it trying to be both simultaneously or is it alternating between frequencies? And if you're trying to do both how useful or efficient is it and if you're trying to alternate how do you know when to do what? Also, when it comes to light and dark, in my opinion, it does have a lot to do with the "means" and the "end".
Outcomes. Like the energy that flows out of one side of a battery or the other, the outcome is either positive or negative. Neutral just means there is no change. Often, a positive outcome for one is a negative outcome for another. Like money. Everyone can't be rich. That money has to come from somewhere. Is it better than no one is poor? Or is it better that some can be rich if they work hard enough or if they're lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family?
And maybe the answer to this question simply changes depending on who you ask and if that person is used to having money or whether they're used to being poor. Which side of the balance were you on before? This is the question of both the Sith and the Jedi. You could very much say that canon Jedi were elites, taken from their families at a young age, and taken care of. Maybe this was a downgrade if their family was rich. But if they were poor it was an upgrade. Their needs (some, not others) were met because the order, collectively, had wealth. For Jedi to make decisions regarding the lives the people who grew up in the harsh environments of poverty and war... this decisions sometimes weren't well informed by personal experience, allowing mistakes to be made. And those who came from less or nothing, remembered the pain and suffering, and saw that they had the power to stop it or to at least help those who were suffering.
That problem wasn't with the Jedi Code. And we're still talking about canon here which is why real life Jediism doesn't need a grey code and all this other stuff that assumes there's something wrong with the Jedi. Real Jedi are different from canon Jedi and therefore do not have the same issues or the same limitations that necessitate such rebellion. In my opinion, a lot of real people are judging the canon Jedi and choosing a different real life path because of these fictional criticisms. In all that I have observed, real Jedi aren't extreme in any sense where it would force a different path in order to balance it. And it's not because real Jedi are grey. No, it is because real Jedi aren't making the mistakes of canon Jedi because we saw the same movies, played the same games, read the same books as everyone else. So why would we imitate all of those mistakes? There's no reason. Those mistakes do not define what a Jedi is.
And so real Jedi don't need a grey path. Understand... the canon Sith rose out of the Jedi. Grey? Rose out of the Jedi. They were all Jedi first (not talking about the Sith species) and disagreement over what to do caused them to depart. This could be a disagreement on the merits of means. For Revan, he didn't split with the Jedi because he wanted to be a bad guy. He was good, wanting to do good. The problem is that villains often think they're good and that they're doing good. The question is for who? And is the means something that will bring peace? Or more war? More suffering? You can't always know in advance. There is much uncertainty in the Force. As such, the Jedi could never predict every outcome; positive or negative.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Revan
Perhaps the Jedi should have gone to war. Revan and Malak didn't join "the other side". They joined the Republic army and Revan became supreme commander. However, it was the JEDI... that were trying to remain neutral! They didn't want to be drawn into that conflict. For what? To kill Mandos? People love Mandos. Now we're all gushing over The Mandalorian series. And obviously there came a time when Mandos weren't trying to kill everyone so was that fight necessary? Or was fighting exactly what Mandalore the ultimate wanted? Did they really want to rule all these systems? Or did they simply want to prove themselves in battle?
But it was this exercise in neutrality and trying not to be a tool of the republic's military that caused Revan and Malak to go to extremes. The problem was that they went to a more light side extreme, idealistically speaking, than the Jedi, who perhaps didn't want to be changed by war. And what happened? Revan and Malak were changed by war. So how were the Jedi wrong when ultimately, Revan and Malak were turned to the dark side and manipulated by a someone more sinister than they?
They may have been strong and powerful as Sith, but they weren't strong in their understanding or experience. You can't just switch back and forth and claim to be a master. Jack of all trades. Revan's story is largely about cleaning up the mess he made, going from one side to the other. They started the Jedi Civil War. So again... maybe the Jedi were wrong in their handling of the Mandalorians. But should they have developed a super weapon like the "Mass Shadow Generator" and turned Malachor V into a graveyard? Was that the right thing? Yes, I'm talking about canon; about legends. Why? Because that's where a lot of this real life grey, Sith, and Revan stuff comes from. People idolize certain characters, seeing them as heroic without necessarily embracing their flaws, failures, weaknesses, and lack of wisdom and understanding and the arrogance to think they knew better.
These are things we all deal with as humans. We want to be the hero of our story but we're also weak. We lack wisdom and understanding. But we think we know so much and so we rebel, not waiting for our peers, not debating until a consensus is reached that considers every angle and perspective. And I love the Revan character too. Just like many others. But I love his story of redemption, not his turn to the dark side. For me his story started after his memory was wiped. They could have just killed this traitorous enemy but they didn't. That's called restraint. And it allowed him to set forth on a path of redemption back to the light. That... is the story.
The Path of Revan is simply one of a "fallen angel"; one that considers a person's fall into darkness and chaos. He didn't fully understand the Jedi path and perspective. Otherwise he wouldn't have rebelled. He didn't fully embrace the Sith path or otherwise he wouldn't have left that either. What we see in the beginning is that he wanted a positive outcome and he was willing to progressively bend his morality around the "means" of fighting the war. This was simply corruption. And so when an even greater force of corruption tempted him with greater means through the use of the star forge, of course he took the forbidden fruit.
This is not the same as grey. Revan went fully dark. And then he came back around, not to the extreme of light he was before when he rejected the Jedi, but more towards the non-extreme that the Jedi he split from were. And so, it's not that the Jedi are extreme light and Sith are extreme dark and grey is happily in the middle. It's that Jedi were in the middle with a positive charge (tendency towards the greater good) while the Sith were in the middle with a negative charge (tendency towards selfish gain). And the stories in the lore tend to focus, not simply on the path of extremists, but on the ability of the mind to slide from one side to the other.
This is why the Revan code in this thread sounds confused to me. It sounds like someone who is trying to have it both ways which will result in unnecessary conflict.
Topic Author
Very interesting to hear others reflections! 
