[dcl.meaning.general] p2.3 says that

Otherwise, the terminal name of E is not looked up. The declaration's target scope is the innermost enclosing namespace scope; if the declaration is contained by a block scope, the declaration shall correspond to a declaration that inhabits the innermost block scope.

Consider this example

void fun(){
   struct A{
    friend void show();  // #1
   };
   void show();  // #2
}

#1 does correspond to #2 but this example is rejected by all implementations that correctly implement the c++20 standard. In that standard, we require the example to satisfy the following rules

[class.friend] p11

If a friend declaration appears in a local class ([class.local]) and the name specified is an unqualified name, a prior declaration is looked up without considering scopes that are outside the innermost enclosing non-class scope. For a friend function declaration, if there is no prior declaration, the program is ill-formed.

the wording "correspond" does not guarantee the order of two declarations. It seems that we want the following rules to constrain this example

Otherwise, the terminal name of E is not looked up. The declaration's target scope is the innermost enclosing namespace scope; if the declaration is contained by a block scope, the declaration shall correspond to a reachable([module.reach#3]) declaration that inhabits the innermost block scope.