Exactly. It’s not a big issue, because nobody is trying to implement BIP 110. However, as is, either the soft fork proposal fails to comprehensively specify the necessary changes, or the current activation client is not specification compliant (or both).
Ah, I think I see now:
If someone else tries to implement BIP 110 based off what is specified in document BIP 110, they might miss this rule.
However, if the Knots activation client is the only implementation of a BIP 110 compliant node, it probably doesn't matter?