[dcl.init.ref] instructs performing direct initialization after applying a user-defined conversion

[dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5, bullet 4, sub-bullet 1 specifies the following:

If T1 or T2 is a class type and T1 is not reference-related to T2, user-defined conversions are
considered using the rules for copy-initialization of an object of type “cv1 T1” by user-defined
conversion (9.4, 12.4.1.4, 12.4.1.5); the program is ill-formed if the corresponding non-reference
copy-initialization would be ill-formed. The result of the call to the conversion function, as
described for the non-reference copy-initialization, is then used to direct-initialize the reference.
For this direct-initialization, user-defined conversions are not considered.

The highlighted wording (which requires performing direct initialization after applying the user-defined conversion) was added in CWG1604. Given that "user-defined conversions are not considered" for the next step of the initialization, I believe that requiring a specific type of initialization does not have any effect on the outcome.

I think there is another issue with the quoted text above, namely:

[...] The result of the call to the conversion function [...]

I believe that the user-defined conversion referred to here could use either a converting constructor or a conversion function, not just a conversion function.

Thank you!

Start with [dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5, bullet 4, sub-bullet 1 and the linked CWG1604 issue. Determine whether the highlighted direct-initialization wording has an observable effect and whether “conversion function” covers converting constructors. Done means documenting the resolution and identifying any required standard wording change.