Could you perhaps send a pull request to remove erroneous annotations?

I had understood the wording of P1642 to mean that LWG had implicitly approved the pending changes:

The following papers are all in the LWG queue as of 2022-04-09:
...
[P1899 views::stride](http://wg21.link/P1899)
...
The above papers add facilities to <ranges>, <utility>, and <functional>. The wording in this revision will include those facilities implicitly

Was that not right?

Looks like an accident indeed: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5640/files#diff-015716b0f124dba6acb7cdf24285de5d954d0958ca8abbb2ad82a015d1852a9eR445-R454.

P1899 was not part of the drafting notes (quoted by #5596 (comment)).

I guess we can keep the current working draft as-is now even if it's contradictory, as the working draft used to have long-standing noexcept mismatch that was eventually fixed via LWG issues.
IMO an LWG issue should be filed soon to make stride_view and its friends freestanding.

@ben-craig Could you please confirm that the sentence I quoted, "The wording in this revision will include those facilities implicitly", does not mean that those new features from the LWG queue have been approved to be freestanding?

The merge conflicts that LWG approved are the ones mentioned in the drafting notes. The freestanding paper was reviewed and approved by LWG on July 2, and stride was approved on July 8. When reviewing freestanding, we only verified and explicitly approved of the things that were already LWG approved.

@ben-craig: thanks -- I think it was a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought that LWG had approved the wording "The wording in this revision will include those facilities implicitly" with the interpretation that those implicit inclusions are also approved.

Oh, I think we already fixed this as part of b77c526.