[over.match.oper] p3 The "rewritten" is used in different meanings

For the operators =, [], or ->, the set of non-member candidates is empty; otherwise, it includes the result of unqualified lookup for operator@ in the rewritten function call ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]), ignoring all member functions.

The wording "rewritten" is basically associated with "rewritten candidates". The use of it in the above bullet seems to make misleading. In the older version, the corresponding wording is that

The set of non-member candidates is the result of the unqualified lookup of operator@ in the context of the expression according to the usual rules for name lookup in unqualified function calls ([basic.lookup.argdep]) except that all member functions are ignored.

Presumably, the modification is concerned to make the lookup for it as if it is applied to a function call whose postfix expression is an unqualified-id. Could we say that to make the meaning unambiguous?

For the operators =, [], or ->, the set of non-member candidates is empty; otherwise, it includes the result of unqualified lookup for operator@ in the rewritten transformed non-member function call ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]), ignoring all member functions.

Search the draft for the quoted paragraph describing non-member candidates for operators. Compare the use of “rewritten” with the issue’s proposed “transformed non-member function call.” Done means the paragraph’s lookup context is unambiguous without changing the stated lookup rules.