I think we’re redundantly stretching the middle here: the rule may as well become “core can only be amended when a proposal says unambiguously that it’s amending core”, rather than defining tags as an important part of a proposal title that never actually have to be written down or considered.

And that doesn’t sound ideal, because we all know it’s easy to write something ambiguously by mistake, and Tags were meant to block that kind of mistake. If the Terms of Reference CfJ had said something vaguer like “replace all instances” or “change the term X to Y”, would this rewording have let it through? If it wouldn’t, this Tags-light approach still has problems. If it would, that would also allow “add rule X, then replace Y with Z” mistakes to impact core.

Kevan raises some good points maybe we don’t need to change this either