Thats why I just don't get this interpretation.
What if the restriction was assigned by a previous controller, then handed off, legitimately without any coordination, why should you reiterate it? You may have no knowledge of it.
Surely it would have been better to assume that all restrictions previously given are in force unless specifically cancelled?
E.g. Our TMC controllers give descent clearance with a requirement to reach F130 by the APP hand-off gate. That is to ensure that departures with a requirement to be above F140 by a point will not be in conflict as soon as they call APP. Normal hand-off approaching the gate, the APP controllers says "descent to 8000 ft". The F130 requirement should still be in force. Surely we don't want the APP controller to have to reiterate the F130 requirement every time to separate with DEP traffic he/she knows nothing about.
I reckon its a crock.
the last thing required is ambiguous phraseology leading to more transmissions
Not aimed at you but I also reckon there's a certain group out there in ATC who search for and can find ambiguity in almost everything that is said. The job has become a ridiculous game of semantics because of "bush lawyers" within the system.