The concern that longobard is raising deals with the fact that, according to his first example, with a headwind component of 9 kt and no ATHR/Icing the Vapp as x QRH would be VLS+3 kt. In the definition of Vapp in the supplementary procedures (Operating speeds) the minimum wind correction to add is 5 kt, hence in that scenario the Vapp would be VLS+5 instead of VLS+3. Basically according to that we can say that an approach with no wind at all could be flown at VLS whilst an approach with at least 1 kt of headwind component should be flown at VLS+5. I believe it is a discrepancy in the way the information is written up.