I will assume this is because of your faulty memory.
My memory concerning an S2R1 statement is correct. It is very likely that it must have been made during the 6th meeting because before ko was not a topic during the meetings while it was during the 6th. I do not recall whether Jin or Wu made the statement but I am absolutely sure that (if it was during the 6th meeting) either of them made it while the other was listening and not objecting. I looked in my report on the 6th meeting but could not find an S2R1 statement there, so I have to rely on my memory only.
You should not for no good reason just assume though that my memory would be faulty!
I agree, of course, that the rules (1988 according to English translation, 2002 according to what I have heard about them so far) do not have such an S2R1 statement in the text.
I am sure you cannot back it up with the minutes of the meetings.
Actually I am not sure because it could be that Terry Benson or Chris Kirschner also have made some notes. (There were no official minutes. Whoever wanted to take notes did so and possibly made a report out of it. I did.)
there is no way they, as very competent referees and rigorous rules experts, would make such an erroneous statement.
You want direct proof? Just read both rules, 1998 and 2002; I challenge you to find what you cited in there.
I have not claimed the S2R1 statement to be explicitly in the rules. I have claimed that one of the Chinese made that statement VERBALLY. The statement is one of intention of what the purpose of the superko rule had been meant to be. One cannot find such intention directly by reading the rules text. Therefore yours is not anything like a direct proof.
Do not hide behind quotations by memory that are nearly impossible to verify.
Do not start unnecessary meta-discussion about my credibility! I also do not do that for yours.
Another proof: the term "exception rule" was made up by you, just as you made up the term "referee ko rule".
Today I am hard pressed on time. Therefore I have used such informal phrases. There is no need to overinterpret them as if I had wanted them to be rules terms.
Your citation of their saying "referee ko rules would apply.." therefore cannot be true.
It is not a matter of truth but of not knowing the Chinese 2002 headline for the related rules section, if the 2002 version has similar sections as the 1988 English version at all.