There is no contradiction. The first example in p6 is saying that the top-level qualifier on the compound type is const, it is not affected by the volatile qualifier on the type volatile int. The second example is saying that the top-level qualifier on the compound type is volatile, it is not affected by the const qualifier on the function type void (int) const. Both examples perfectly agree with p2.

Ok I see what you mean. But what does it mean a volatile pointer to a member function of type void(int)?

Exactly that: a pointer-to-member is just some (special) data type, and that type can be volatile-qualified, as-if it were a volatile int.

But what does it mean a volatile pointer to a member function of type void(int)?

using PMF = void (C::*)(int) const;
PMF pmf = &C::foo;
volatile PMF vol_pmf = pmf;

I really think this kind of thing belongs on StackOverflow. Instead of telling us there's a flaw in the standard, you could ask on StackOverflow why the wording seems contradictory. This could be clarified there, and so could your follow-up question about what the volatile-qualified type means.

Well if that's what you prefer, definitely I'll stop posting issues here. Thanks for your kind attention. Good luck!

"what does it mean"

The same what it means to have a volatile T for any other (scalar) T.