The way it reads to me is that it recommends that you add 200', this is only a recommendation and therefore you do not have to adhere to it. However the 'but' followed by 'absolute minima' suggests to me that 500'/600' must be adhered to.
I see your point, but I would suggest that the entire construction after "recommended" is governed by that word.
It's an old argument, as we all know, and it really matters not a jot what opinions turn up on this board: a courtroom argument would be interesting, though.
There is also another argument which I suspect might get an airing ...
This phrase has been in existence in this text for a long time, and has been the subject of considerable debate and provable communication with the CAA. If, as has been suggested by that well-known close friend of Irish ATCOs
, the CAA meant for it to dictate minimums of 500/600' for IMC holders, why have they simply not revised the text to make this plain ? Is it perhaps that there is no such intention ?