The allocator requirements subclause includes an example of a minimal allocator implementation. The unnumbered example immediately follows paragraph 9, with which it has no particular association, and precedes paragraph 10, with which it also has no particular association. I suspect the intent is that this example be the final paragraph in the subclause and we inadvertently broke that intent when we added paragraph 10 which discusses over-aligned types.

We should give the example its own paragraph number and relocate it to the end of the subclause to avoid it being buried amidst requirements.