The word "should" is the worst possible word to use because you CAN use that as a regulation. Imagine if you were to mess up a big contract at work, because you did not forward the email to the correct person (I realise this is a terrible example, but I witnessed this recently so go with me
). Your boss turns around and kicks your ass and says "RedSquirrel, wtf? You should have sent that". Aye, that word should is good enough for you to get your ass kicked.
Similarly, we have health and safety regs at work that say things like "Staff should not enter the fire ground without appropriate PPE". And "Staff should inspect the vehicle before use". If I don't obey these, I will get in trouble despite the word should being in there. The word should is not the appropriate word for that sentence.
You've asked me how I would word it, yet you've done a better job of it that the ACO in your own post. There is absolutely no ambiguity with your statement. Your statement is an intended aim, however, it's very clear that it may not occur. It in no way can be misused. You're also right that they've used the word should to allow for unforeseen circumstances. But that word also allows them to use it as a penalty reason if they want to do so. That's...rather convenient.
Sorry, the whole thing stinks of...well, the ACO tbh. It's not been a well-managed process at any point. But we should've known that with how well the hybrid situation was managed before.
chernaudi, agreed that it doesn't help having the Pro/Am setup. Although it's rather funny they've needed dispensation from the ACO to even allow Hedman in, as the rules don't allow him in an LMP1 car. Driver rankings and BoP - good times. So they needed to be allowed to be against the rules in order to be disadvantaged by a different set of moving rules.