Misusing of the wording "potentially-throwing" in these cases

any of the following constructs is potentially-throwing

a constructor selected by overload resolution in the implicit definition of the constructor for class X to initialize a potentially constructed subobject

any of the destructors for any of its potentially constructed subobjects is potentially-throwing or the destructor is virtual and the destructor of any virtual base class is potentially-throwing.

E implicitly invokes a function (...) that is potentially-throwing

AFAIK, the property "potentially-throwing" ascribes to an expression. That is, we may say an expression is potentially-throwing or not. However, we cannot say a constructor, destructor, or function is potentially-throwing. Maybe, we should say such an entity has the potentially-throwing exception specification

The statement for implicitly-declared assignment operator indicates this point

if the invocation of any assignment operator in the implicit definition is potentially-throwing.

So, for the first three bullets. Should we say that the invocation of the destructor, constructor, or function is potentially-throwing? Or, another way, such a constructor, destructor, or function has the potentially-throwing exception specification? That may make sense.

The redundant bullet of defining "potentially-throwing"

An expression E is potentially-throwing if

• E implicitly invokes a function(...) that is potentially-throwing
• any of the immediate subexpressions of E is potentially-throwing

In this case, Isn't that the last bullet can cover the former, as per

The immediate subexpressions of an expression E are

• any function call that E implicitly invokes

The exception of a declaration that does not have a noexcept-specifier

unless it is a destructor or a deallocation function or is defaulted on its first declaration, in which cases the exception specification is as specified below

As specified below, the relevant rules do not only cover the case for defaulted on its first declaration but also cover the case for implicitly-declared. So, in order to be consistent, I think the introduction in this sentence should add the case for implicitly-declared into its exception cases.