> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did > not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903. This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewhat surprised that the rather long discussion here doesn't seem to be considering it. Just to reiterate: Rule 591 *explicitly* makes questions and statements equivalent for the specific case of inquiry CFJs.
