I think this might refer to [temp.over.link] p5, and what is really meant is that the expressions denoting the parameter types are equivalent.

It's worth noting that the next paragraph already forward-references [temp.over.link], so adding another reference seems obviously correct.

AFAIK, the convention is that, within a subclause, a reference to a term appears only once.
So you might want to move the reference to the earliest appearance of the term within the subclause.

Seems related to #1475.

@JohelEGP Where are you getting this convention from? I don't think this is an ISO rule, and I also don't recall us having such a general preference. I couldn't find anything in the wiki, either. Has this come up before?

Nothing explicitly stated in any guideline,
although I remember @jensmaurer calling it out before when someone repeats a reference.
I'd have to find such a comment.
But you can also see that subclauses typically don't repeat a reference twice.

@tkoeppe In general, having the same cross-reference repeated in close proximity is something CWG has avoided in the past. I wouldn't go as far and say "one xref per subclause", but duplicating xrefs in a single paragraph certainly crosses the line. There's a judgment call for the grey area in between.

For "consecutive paragraphs structured the same", I'd say an xref for the first such paragraph is enough.

I'd judge it by whether the cross reference is useful. If a subclause has 12 paragraphs and p1 and p12 refer to the same remote rule in different contexts, I'd consider whether a reference in both paragraphs is help for each one.