[basic.lookup.unqual] p5 The component names of a type-specifier or ptr-operator are underspecified

An unqualified name that is a component name ([expr.prim.id.unqual]) of a type-specifier or ptr-operator of a conversion-type-id is looked up in the same fashion as the conversion-function-id in which it appears.

The component names of a type-specifier is not explicitly specified in subclause [dcl.type.general]. As well, the component names of a ptr-operator is not specified in subclause [dcl.decl.general].

A type-specifier is

• simple-type-specifier
• elaborated-type-specifier
• typename-specifier
• cv-qualifier

The component names of the first three components are specified in their respective subclauses. However, a type-specifier can be a simple-type-specifier or any other component in the list, but we cannot conversely say any component in the list is called type-specifier. So, we should explicitly specify what component names of a type-specifier are.

The component names of a type-specifier are those of the simple-type-specifier, the elaborated-type-specifier, or the typename-specifier.

As well,

ptr-operator:

• • attribute-specifier-seq_opt cv-qualifier-seq_opt
• & attribute-specifier-seq_opt
• && attribute-specifier-seq_opt
• nested-name-specifier * attribute-specifier-seq_optcv-qualifier-seq_opt

we can say a ptr-operator is any component in the list but not the other way around. So, we should explicitly specify what component names of a ptr-operator are.

The component names of a ptr-operator are those of its nested-name-specifier(if any).

Start by reading the issue's references to [dcl.type.general] and [dcl.decl.general], then inspect how component names are specified for the related type-specifier and ptr-operator subclauses. Done means the draft explicitly defines the component names for both constructs and matches the proposed wording and grammar.