Unclearly defined rule in [over.match.funcs#general-5] conflicts with the rule defined in [dcl.init.ref#5.2]

struct A{
    A() = default;
    A(volatile const A&){}
    void show()const volatile {}  // its implicit object parameter is of type volatile const A&
};
volatile A a;
A b = std::move(a);  //1 ill-formed
std::move(a).show(); //2 ok

Since prescribed in [dcl.init.ref#5.2]

Otherwise, if the reference is an lvalue reference to a type that is not const-qualified or is volatile-qualified, the program is ill-formed.

"//1" is definitely ill-formed. However, according to [over.match.funcs#general-4], the implicit object parameter should be volatile const A&, the parameter type is basically the same as that of "//1" chosen. Presumably,[over.match.funcs#general-5] gives the privilege, that is

For non-static member functions declared without a ref-qualifier, even if the implicit object parameter is not const-qualified, an rvalue can be bound to the parameter as long as in all other respects the argument can be converted to the type of the implicit object parameter.

Since there is not an exception expound in [dcl.init.ref#5.2], it appears to me that the conflict would be resulted in by [over.best.ics#general-1], that is

The sequence of conversions is an implicit conversion as defined in [conv], which means it is governed by the rules for initialization of an object or reference by a single expression ([dcl.init], [dcl.init.ref]).

My proposal is that we should first change [dcl.init.ref#5.2] to that

Otherwise, if the reference is an lvalue reference to a type that is not const-qualified or is volatile-qualified, unless somewhere specified, the program is ill-formed.

Back to [over.match.funcs#general-5], I think that the expound "in all other respects" is unclear, I think it should be modified as the following so that will be more clear

For non-static member functions declared without a ref-qualifier, even if the implicit object parameter is not const-qualified or is volatile-qualified, or both, an rvalue can be bound to the parameter as long as their referenced types are reference-compatible.

In terms of the original [over.match.funcs#general-5], for instance

struct Test{
    void show(){}
};
Test const t;
std::move(t).show(); // ill-formed

It is not fine for explaining this example.

Compare the examples against [dcl.init.ref#5.2], [over.match.funcs#general-4/5], and [over.best.ics#general-1], focusing on how volatile references and implicit object parameters are treated. Done means the interaction is resolved with wording or interpretation that consistently explains both examples and removes the reported conflict.