Chaps, thanks and I note your interpretation.
However, I don't believe that it is universally read that way. The examiner who tested me for the FI was surprised when I said I'd also keep the CRI when I sent my licence to CAA as he said that the FI (without CPL TK) included all of the CRI privileges. I understand that this interpretation was also held by the head coach of the LAA coaching scheme.
I read the 'LAPL-only' bit to relate to ab-initio training only.
Logically (I know, I know...) it would seem daft that a CRI without CPL TK could do things that an FI without CPL TK could not. I think the confusion comes from poor wording on the licence leading to unintended interpretations.
I suggest the real problem is that it is being interpreted differently by different people. The rules should be clear, unambiguous and logical (again, I know, I know...).