[dcl.init.aggr] The meaning of "corresponding" is vague in aggregate initialization

Since in c++17 standard, we introduce the aggregate initialization with the following sentence

When an aggregate is initialized by an initializer list as specified in [dcl.init.list], the elements of the initializer list are taken as initializers for the elements of the aggregate, in order.

"In order" hints that each element is initialized with the subsequent element of the initializer list. "In order" is instead with "corresponding" in the current draft, such as

Otherwise, the element is copy-initialized from the corresponding initializer-clause or is initialized with the brace-or-equal-initializer of the corresponding designated-initializer-clause.

I would argue that the use of either "in order" or "corresponding" is a bit vague in the definitions of the aggregate initialization. We should give that definition a more formal approach? For instance

Otherwise, the n_th element is copy-initialized from the corresponding n_th initializer-clause or is initialized with the brace-or-equal-initializer of the corresponding n_th designated-initializer-clause.

Which can coordinate with [dcl.init.aggr] p3.2

If the initializer list is a brace-enclosed initializer-list, the explicitly initialized elements of the aggregate are the first n elements of the aggregate, where n is the number of elements in the initializer list.

Start with [dcl.init.aggr] p3.2 and the paragraph using “corresponding” in the aggregate-initialization wording. Compare their treatment of initializer-list elements and designated initializers, then clarify whether the wording should formally identify the nth element and its initializer.