The rule for potentially selecting the the constructor as if the object were an rvalue currently reads as:

When the criteria for elision of a copy/move operation are met, but not for an exception-declaration, and the object to be copied is designated by an lvalue, or when the expression in a return statement is a (possibly parenthesized) id-expression that names an object with automatic storage duration declared in the body or parameter-declaration-clause of the innermost enclosing function or lambda-expression, overload resolution to select the constructor for the copy is first performed as if the object were designated by an rvalue.

This is a very long sentence with lots of internal boolean operators, and every three months I come across this sentence and mis-parse it. It would be great to come with with a rewording of this such that it's obvious what the two cases are. Something to the effect of:

Overload resolution to select the constructor for the copy is first performed as if the object were designated by an rvalue if either:

• the criteria for elision of a copy/move operation are met, but not for an exception-declaration, and the object to be copied is designated by an lvalue, or
• the expression in a return statement is a (possibly parenthesized) id-expression that names an object with automatic storage duration declared in the body or parameter-declaration-clause of the innermost enclosing function or lambda-expression

Or really any other kind of editorial wizardry to clearly separate the two conditions that lead to the rvalue overload being considered.