DFC,
Your interpretation of the relevant part of the AIP seems to be one of two possible interpretations. Your quote, but with the emphasis in a different place:
3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach
With the emphasis this way round, the word "recommended" could be interpreted to apply to the whole of the paragraph.
The word "absolute" does not have to mean mandatory; my dictionary gives a number of definitions of the word, including "not relative" and "independent". So I think there is a valid argument for the "absolute" to mean that the addition of 200' to the minima is the first part of the recommendation, but then there is an independant minimum, which is not relative to the first part, of 500' or 600' as appropriate; both of these are included in the paragraph which, as a whole, is merely "recommended".
That's certainly the way I read the paragraph when I first came across it, and it's the way several other people I know interpret it too, but I can also see how it might be interpreted the way you describe. (My dictionary also gives alternative definitions of "absolute" as meaning "unrestricted" or "complete" which would fit in with your interpretation.)
FFF
--------------