As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee (AK) is essentially needed to address specific situations, because if one always adheres strictly to "simple and clear" rules, the AK is unnecessary. And judges are unnecessary. But since the AK exists, its collective decision becomes higher than the rules when it is consulted. By analogy with judicial practice, where there is a concept called "precedent." Exactly such a specific situation arose. The AK reviewed it and made a decision, i.e., fulfilled its direct purpose. So, I don't understand what all this nonsense about the rules is about.