[basic.life] Does storage reuse update pointers/references/names when the original object’s lifetime has not ended?

[basic.life/8] specifies (bold emphasis of the condition mine):

If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if the original object is transparently replaceable (see below) by the new object.

Basically the condition is this: if a new object reuses the storage occupied by an original object whose lifetime has ended, then…

But why isn’t it just this (i.e. removing the condition ‘whose lifetime has ended’): if a new object reuses the storage occupied by an original object, then…

In other words, does the consequence on pointers/references/names referring to the original object still apply with that less strict condition?

Start with [basic.life/8] in the linked C++ standard draft and compare the current wording with the proposed removal of “whose lifetime has ended.” Determine whether pointer, reference, and name replacement semantics differ when the original lifetime is active; done means resolving the question and identifying any required draft wording change.