[over.over] p1 Eliminate the ambiguity in the sentence

An id-expression whose terminal name refers to an overload set S and that appears without arguments is resolved to a function, a pointer to function, or a pointer to member function for a specific function that is chosen from a set of functions selected from S determined based on the target type required in the context (if any), as described below.

Emphasis mine, whether it means:

1. S is determined based on the target type, or
2. a set of functions is determined based on the target type.

? Although, S seems to only rely on the result of the name lookup. However, the sentence requires us to check other subclauses t o determine what the intent actually means.

Is it an improvement?

An id-expression whose terminal name refers to an overload set S and that appears without arguments is resolved to a function, a pointer to function, or a pointer to member function for a specific function that is chosen from S'(a set of functions) selected from S, where S' is determined based on the target type required in the context (if any) as described below.

Start with the quoted overload-resolution sentence in issue #6127 and read the surrounding subclauses it references to determine whether the target type selects S or a subset of S. Done means revising the sentence so that relationship is unambiguous while preserving the intended standard wording.