The article makes it very clear that the ambiguity arises in another phrase: “difference in ordering of the RRs in the answer section is not significant”, which is applied to an example; the problem with examples being that they are illustrative, viz. generalisable, and thus may permit reordering everywhere, and in any case, whether they should or shouldn’t becomes a matter of pragmatic context.

Which goes to show, one person’s “obvious understanding” is another’s “did they even read the entire document”.

All of which also serves to highlight the value of normative language, but that came later.