[meta.logical] unclear wording

In N4778 [meta.logical]/2

then instantiating conjunction<B1, ..., BN>::value does not require the instantiation of Bj::value for j > i

What is "the instantiation of Bj::value"?

(The font of j should also be fixed.)

The change in #1133 (LWG 2567) also introduces another (possibly non-editorial) problem: does the explicit cast to bool of value mandated? For example:

#include <type_traits>

struct B
{
  constexpr explicit operator bool() const noexcept {return true;}
};

struct C
{
  static constexpr const B value = B();
};

int main()
{
  static_assert(bool(std::conjunction<C, std::true_type>::value));
}

Is the program above well-formed?

It seems intentionally ill-formed as per "shall have a member value which is convertible to bool" wording in [meta.logical]/4. (Is this presumely "implicit", or like std::is_convertible?) Then bool(Bj::value) is not appropriate as it suggests the cast shall be supported, as implemented in cppreference.

Otherwise, libstdc++, libc++ and MSVC currently all has the bug concerned with the resolution of LWG 2567, and [meta.logical]/4 should be reworded to clarify the intention. I guess this is not intentional because a) it was not proposed, which should be consisted to existed implementations; b) the context here is more like operands of && but not if, which needs no contextually conversion, so omission of explicit cast should not be encouraged; and c) it is an editorial side effect implied by the title of #1133: "fixed in add further explicit boolean conversions editorially".