We have the following sentence in [lex.ccon]/p2:

"The examples in Table 9 for non-encodable ordinary and wide character literals assume that the specified
character lacks representation in the ordinary literal encoding or wide literal encoding, respectively, or that encoding it would require more than one code unit."

I read it as:
"The examples in Table 9 for non-encodable ordinary and wide character literals assume

• that [...], or
• that encoding it would require more than one code unit."

What is "it"? The "examples"? The "literals"? Neither makes sense. "it" is supposed to refer to "the specified character" introduced in the 1st part of the or'ed list, so should be parsed as if it were:

"The examples in Table 9 for non-encodable ordinary and wide character literals assume that the specified
character

• lacks representation in the ordinary literal encoding or wide literal encoding, respectively, or
• would require more than one code unit to encode."

The simplest fix is to replace "it" with "the specified character".

Originally posted by @burblebee in #5004 (comment)