Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but the CAA merely reproduce what someone asks them to promulgate. In this situation the CAA have either not reproduced what has been asked, Brize have asked for the wrong thing or someone in the CAA has made an executive decision to cut something out of that natty little piece of A5.
Now if it were me, I would give Brize a call point out the ambiguity and suggest that they raise a 933 (the form used to notify the CAA of any change) requesting clarification on future publications.
On the other hand, this isn't exactly one of those life changing ommissions.