Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".
I'm sure one of the desired, but unspecified, effects of this decision is to condemn us to quibbling over an abomination. The fascists are suddenly bolder, making their moves while the targets struggle to articulate what "is" is and isn't.
