Pavitra wrote:
> I also support. The judgement of these CFJs should at least have
> addressed this line of argument.
I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
competing interpretations:
+S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
limit and 2126's increases stick.
-S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to operate
once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so 2126's
increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and resets things.
