Thanks to all for your input. Regarding questioning the erroneous crews we don't get much constructive feedback, merely ”ohhs” and ”didn't realize” etc. Whether right or wrong it would be nice to know if anything in the procedure could be construed as ”optional” or if any traps exist in terms of how procedural approaches are executed generally against our published ones. As for including TONIC/LIMES in the clearance, it makes them ”wordy” where we like simple and furthermore shouldn't we then also include ”remember to follow the descent profile” (which also seems to cause confusion) and ”remember to intercept LLZ” (which has also happened). In other words, what's the point of a published procedure if it has to be spelled out.
Reference altitude restriction at LIMES or TD it is expected that you know what is published in the AIP i.e. ”or as directed by ATC”. Most controllers interpret that as you should descend to whatever altitude cleared to without regard to the 4500/8000 commencement altitude unless specifically cleared 4500/8000 and approach. When there is a sequence to be handled controllers generally don't want to commit themselves to early to the procedural approach as it only takes one ”misinterpretation” of the procedure to cause a separation issue. Hence you might find yourself at a point where it is too late to adhere to the 4500/8000 when cleared for an approach. Which again is why most controllers simply stick to vectored approaches iso the official push for procedural approaches when traffic permits.