[basic.start.dynamic] p5 Bad example for deferred initialization

// - File 1 -
#include "a.h"
#include "b.h"
B b;
A::A(){
  b.Use();
}

// - File 2 -
#include "a.h"
A a;

// - File 3 -
#include "a.h"
#include "b.h"
extern A a;
extern B b;

int main() {
  a.Use();
  b.Use();
}

For this example, The interpretation for the deferred dynamic initialization may exist something wrong. The comment is:

If, however, a is initialized at some point after the first statement of main, b will be initialized prior to its use in A​::​A.

In other words, the sentence interprets that when the dynamic initialization is deferred, how to initialize these deferred variable. Although, the non-inline function A::A() is defined at the same TU as the variable b, however the invocation of A::A() is caused by the initialization of a, in other words, the use of A::A() shouldn't be considered as non-initialization odr-use, whose term definition is:

A non-initialization odr-use is an odr-use ([basic.def.odr]) not caused directly or indirectly by the initialization of a non-local static or thread storage duration variable.

Hence, in this situation, the use of A::A() shouldn't cause the initialization of the variable b. The use of b in expression b.Use() is caused indirectly by the initialization of the variable a(as aforementioned), which shouldn't trigger the initialization of the variable b. So, why the comment says that b will be initialized prior to its use in A​::​A?

Such an issues has been discussed at here.

Start with the [basic.start.dynamic] wording and the three-file example in this issue, then compare the interpretation with the linked Stack Overflow discussion. Resolve whether the comment correctly describes deferred initialization and, if not, identify the wording or example that needs correction.