You find it to be so. Others, not so much:
(1) Ὁ ἡ τό As a Pronoun
249. Introduction. The original use of ὁ ἡ τό as a demonstrative pronoun is retained in classical usage in certain fixed phrases; the forms of the old relative pronoun ὅς ἥ ὅ replace it occasionally in classical and more frequently in Hellenistic times. The origin of this confusion was, on the one hand, the old sigmatic alternative form of ὁ: ὅς which in Greek had become identical with the relative in form; and, on the other, the Epic and dialectal use of ὁ ἡ τό as a relative pronoun (cf. the article der in German which serves as article, relative and demonstrative; in English that is both demonstrative and relative and is related to the article). Cf. K.–G. ii 227. In the NT (except the Epic quotation from Aratus in A 17:28 where τοῦ = τούτου) there are preserved only ὁ μὲν … ὁ δέ (ὃς μὲν … ὃς δέ) ‘the one … the other’ and ὁ δέ ‘but he’, ὁ μὲν οὖν ‘now he’. Other expressions like καὶ ὅς (Homil Clem 6.2.13 καὶ ὃς ἔφη), καὶ τόν ‘and he, him’, τὸν καὶ τόν ‘such and such’, or ‘so and so’, πρὸ τοῦ ‘formerly’ have completely disappeared.
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 131). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1099. The article ὁ, ἡ, τό, was originally a demonstrative pronoun, and as such supplied the place of the personal pronoun of the third person. By gradual weakening it because the definite article, It also served as a relative pronoun (1105). (Cp. Germ. der, demonstrative article and relative; French le from ille.) ὁ as a demonstrative is still retained in part in Attic prose (1106), while the beginnings of its use as the article are seen even in Homer (1102).
Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 284). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.
You can read on in the grammars if you wish to see just how limited the "pronominal" use actually is in Attic, even less so in Koine.
Of course I have read all of them. There are lots of properties about the article. What you quote from Smyth and BDF does not contradict the proposition that the individualizing article never loses its pronominal force, in fact those quotes are more general.
Middleton says, “it becomes evident that there is no ground whatever for making a distinction between the nature of the Article o` and the Pronoun o` and that the “near relation” is in truth no other than perfect identity.” (Middleton, T. F. (1833). The Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 13)
Modern Greek linguists understand that the article has a primary function of identification. Greek 101 grammars say it is to make something definite and that's just plain wrong.
So, let's reason together. If an individualizing article serves to identify, the only time it is not pronominal is when the entity is first mentioned. Sometimes this is seen without the article and later repeated with the article.
If the individualizing article frequently is not pronominal, it should not be too hard for you to give examples.