This isn't copy-list-initialization, there's no {} here - it's plain "copy-initialization". The proposed change isn't editorial, it's normative since it causes the default constructor to default-initialize value_ instead of value-initializing it. These comments apply to line 13304 as well.

Thanks for the correction. I'm going to submit an LWG since it actually caused some issues.

it causes the default constructor to default-initialize value_ instead of value-initializing it

I believe default-initialization and value-initialization are equivalent for movable-box. Its default ctor, whenever provided, always value-initializes the contained value.

However, the propose change seems non-editorial to me. The current wording does require move construction in these default ctors (as specified via optional's corresponding ctor), which is probably wrong, and perhaps an LWG issue is needed to correct them.

@CaseyCarter , "it causes the default constructor to default-initialize value_ instead of value-initializing it."

This is not quite accurate. We're initializing a movable-box<W> with a value-initialized value of type W, which may or may not be equivalent to value-initializing the movable-box<W> itself (this issue claims it isn't equivalent, and actually harmful).