I think your summary is mostly right, except for the minor editorial clean-ups
part. Even editorial changes must meet the substancial/material qualification.
Thank you Robert, I believe your summary is accurate and captures the points from the meeting.
I actually would argue that the RZM change wouldn't qualify, because a RSO
would know what RZM meant. So figuring out where the fine line is for
editorial changes may be tricky.
I'd consider that a document error, as in general acronyms should always be spelled out. As such I'd say its an error (as opposed to just a clarification), and I'd say it should be included in a future revision. But we can discuss it during a WP meeting of course.