Some examples:

1. From [class.derived]. [basic.stc] is about storage duration, not layout. [expr.eq] is completely unrelated.
   

   draft/source/classes.tex

   Lines 3588 to 3597 in fc974c3

   	\begin{note}
   	A base class subobject might have a layout\iref{basic.stc} different
   	from the layout of a most derived object of the same type. A base class
   	subobject might have a polymorphic behavior\iref{class.cdtor}
   	different from the polymorphic behavior of a most derived object of the
   	same type. A base class subobject may be of zero size\iref{class};
   	however, two subobjects that have the same class type and that belong to
   	the same most derived object must not be allocated at the same
   	address\iref{expr.eq}.
   	\end{note}

2. From [class.access.spec]. [expr.rel] does not describe allocation order at all (and probably never did).
   

   draft/source/classes.tex

   Lines 4714 to 4717 in fc974c3

   	\begin{note}
   	The effect of access control on the order of allocation
   	of data members is specified in~\ref{expr.rel}.
   	\end{note}

The list is incomplete. Most broken references (if not all) point to either [basic] or [expr]. Other clauses seem more accurate.