On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:46 PM Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, also, well you’re at it, could you change “correctly identified” to > “correctly and publicly identified” so that no one, like, hides the fact > that they’ve identified it and then still claims they’ve invalidated the > decision?
I just submitted a longer proposal that effectively does that, though I'm not sure how it'll be received. It replaces the clause with a form of self-ratification. It also uses the wording "the notice must clearly specify" rather than "lacks a clear specification". I think that helps with your concern a little: the thing that has to be clear changes from 'some part of the notice' to the notice itself, so you can no longer say that "this thing is perfectly clear if extracted from the notice and read in isolation". I'm keeping this proposal around as well because the other one may not pass. However, I'm not convinced that "unobfuscated" is different enough from "clear" to make a difference. I'll think about the wording some more.
