The first premise is false.

What else would “may list any number of existing Special Case Rules to be set to a status other than their respective Default Status” mean?

Well, for a start that would be insufficient to rule the entire Ascension Address illegal - in order to be a valid Ascension Address all a post has to do is be ‘an entry in the “Ascension Address” category’ posted in the right circumstances, the contents are thereafter largely optional.

Secondly, the clause in question doesn’t prevent other statements being made in the post. Statements that Special Case rules should be set to their default value have no legal bearing but their presence is otherwise irrelevant. An Ascension Address can also state that the sky is blue, or that banana bread is delicious - these statements have no ruleset bearing but, you know, they also have no ruleset bearing. Getting from there to “makes the whole post illegal” requires a leap of logic that the ruleset does not support.

And in this instance, those statements having no effect means that they indirectly do have their effects, as the defaults would be set anyway.

The leap of logic here is sufficiently preposterous that it makes me wonder whether there’s something else wrong with the 05/11 AA that is being swept under the rug.

Ignoring all the “whereas” as flavour text and agreeing with Josh on the need to uphold, the existing ruletext seems like a clearer step-by-step explanation of the process.