Gums, you've neatly summarised one thought of mine that I have not had time to elaborate fully (and don't at the moment either, but will raise in summary form).
From a human interface standpoint, the idea of multiple "laws" does not seem to me to be the optimum way of structuring things, trying to remember what is or is not in each law. My own intuition is that it would be more intuitive to have a clear indication of what "protections" have been lost that you formerly relied on.*
It would therefore seem that the better way would be:
(a) to know through training what "protections" you have when things are "normal";
(b) when things go wrong, errors are expressed in terms of each "protection" that is lost -- one indication for each protection lost (or, where there are multiple levels of degradation, what degree has been lost and what is left).
So that where one or more protections may be lost depending on the fault, your attention is specifically directed to what you no longer have - (eg simplistically: no rudder travel limiter, no abnormal attitude protection, or something like "no autotrim available - check trim and trim manually" etc). You wouldn't have to think in terms of "law", but rather in terms of dealing with the indication of what has been lost and what you might have to do in response.
This might assist where there is some obscure or not easily remembered (or easily overlooked) protection that is or is not lost when in some sub-law -- to try to avoid the situation where you don't realise you have or haven't lost something.
I realise that since I am not directly qualified to comment, and I am working off what I have gleaned here about laws and sub-laws, with permutations of outcomes. I have not had time to sit down to check this objectively, though, which I would normally do before posting, and won't for quite a long time due to work. so I apologise for that. If I am wrong, and this is effectively what happens now, then what I suggest may at best be a distinction without a difference.
* In CS terms, the point is sort of that laws are effectively "modes", which is what computers are good at but humans aren't as much. In my experience, people are better equipped to deal in terms of the contents/specifics/characteristics associated with a mode, not the fact itself of being in a mode.