Hopefully this counts as editorial? I think the design direction is clear here, and we even have wording in like [over.match.class.deduct] which says:

If the function or function template was generated from a constructor or deduction-guide that had an explicit-specifier, each such notional constructor is considered to have that same explicit-specifier.

This looks good to me, but changing grammar feels like a non-editorial change.

On the other hand, [over.match.class.deduct] already assumes that a deduction-guide has an explicit-specifier:

... If the function or function template was generated from a constructor or deduction-guide that had an explicit-specifier, each such notional constructor is considered to have that same explicit-specifier. ...

@zygoloid ?

This definitely needs at least CWG review. I don't feel entirely comfortable making a grammar change such as this editorially, even though I think it would be within editorial remit to do so; unless CWG strongly wants this fixed editorially, I'd prefer that this go through the core issue process.

I don't understand what the "core issue process" actually is.

I sent an email to the Core list describing this issue. It got one response. I assume at this point the thread is just dead. This seems to be fairly typical. So I went ahead and just opened a PR since other parts of the wording already assume this to be the case.

Sent a reminder e-mail to Mike Miller.

Just a friendly and encouraging ping, @jensmaurer @zygoloid. Is there an issue for this? How do I make one?

This is CWG 2422.

Fixed with 7c9d35d