Moore's Open Question argument is that moral properties aren't identical to natural ones because there's always an open, meaningful question of whether the moral good really is identical to that natural property. Moore is saying the two concepts aren't analytically related. And the main reason they're not is that facts are very different from values. So obviously the two discourses (Moore's analytical argument and Hume's is/ought gap argument) are very closely related. It's the same basic problem posed differently or in different contexts.

And your quibble here is illustrative of many of your other criticisms of what I've written. You're what a lawyer would call a hostile witness. Perhaps no one is entitled to a charitable reading, but it's quite tedious dealing with so many of these quibbles and mischaracterizations.

I'm going to give you short shrift this time around and give you the last word for now. We're largely repeating ourselves anyway. You can have at my next economics article if you like. It will be called something like "Do Economists Presume that Everyone’s Selfish?"