[basic.def.odr#9] Saying that a scope corresponds to a function is not precise

[basic.def.odr#9]

A local entity is odr-usable in a scope if:

• either the local entity is not *this, or an enclosing class or non-lambda function parameter scope exists and, if the innermost such scope is a function parameter scope, it corresponds to a non-static member function, and

Since the wording "correspond" has been used to expound the relationship between one declaration and another declaration. Moreover, expounding the relationship between a declaration and a relevant scope, we use the "introduce", which is shown as the following:

every other scope S is introduced by a declaration, parameter-declaration-clause, statement, or handler (as described in the following subclauses of [basic.scope]) appearing in another scope which thereby contains S.

Hence, I think that change "it corresponds to a non-static member function" to that

it is introduced by a non-static member function

or

it is introduced by the parameter-declaration-clause of a non-static member function

is more precise and consistent.

Locate [basic.def.odr#9] in the C++ draft and read the surrounding wording on local entities, scopes, and function parameter scopes. Compare the use of “corresponds” with the draft’s use of “introduced by,” then update the sentence if the proposed terminology is consistent with those definitions. Done means the relationship is expressed precisely and consistently.