The built-in assignment operator does not create a new object. Plus, the [basic.life] p8 quote does not talk about "result object" of a prvalue at all, it just talks about objects in general. I'm not seeing a conflict.

The built-in assignment operator does not create a new object.

Yet [basic.life/8] specifies that object replacement creates a new object: ‘a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied’.

Plus, the [basic.life] p8 quote does not talk about "result object" of a prvalue at all

Yet [basic.life/8] specifies that object replacement creates (i.e. initializes) a new object, and [basic.lval/5] defines a result object as a new object that is created (i.e. initialized): ‘The result object of a prvalue is the object initialized by the prvalue;’

No.

[intro.object] p1 lists the situations when objects are created, and assignment is not in the list. So, assignment does not create an object (it just replaces the value of an existing object).

So, assignment does not create an object (it just replaces the value of an existing object).

In that case this sentence in [basic.life/8] is incorrect:

If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if the original object is transparently replaceable (see below) by the new object.

It is not incorrect. It is orthogonal to your issue.

Could you elaborate?

The precondition in the sentence does not apply.

Which sentence, which precondition?

If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if the original object is transparently replaceable (see below) by the new object.

The first part of the precondition does not occur in your example.

int i;
i = 1;

Feel free to join #standardese at the C++ Slack. There, we can discuss this and whether something might be editorial.

@maggyero, the sentence reads "If [...] a new object is created..."
I have shown that no new object is created for the assignment, so the "if" is not satisfied, and the sentence in [basic.life] simply doesn't apply. "If I ate a banana, I would be full." If I haven't eaten a banana, this is not a statement whether I'm full or not (I might be full for other reasons, or not).

[intro.object] p1 lists the situations when objects are created, and assignment is not in the list. So, assignment does not create an object (it just replaces the value of an existing object).

Do you mean that when built-in assignment replaces the value of an existing object, the lifetime of the existing object continues with the new value without interruption, that is without destruction of the existing object and creation of a new object in the same storage location?

Yes

Okay so my mental model of objects was wrong. An object is not a stored value as I thought, since its value can change with built-in assignment as you explained. But nor is an object a storage location, since the storage location of an object can be reused deterministically with placement new by another object before the storage location is released.