p2579r0 vs. https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.scope#block-2 CWG2838

Is

void foo () {
  auto f = [i = 5] () { int i; return 0; };
}

supposed to be valid after the P2579R0 changes? Before that paper and before P2036R3 this wouldn't be valid, because
the capture inhabited the same scope as int i; P2036R3 changed it to inhabit the parameter scope, so parent scope of it
and then https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.scope#block-2 triggered there. But P2579R0 says that the init capture inhabits
lambda scope and isn't that the parent scope of the parameter scope, i.e. grandparent scope of the lambda's compound statement's scope?

Start by reading [basic.scope#block-2] alongside P2579R0 and P2036R3, then trace the scopes in the example to determine whether the declaration is valid. Done means resolving the question and identifying the corresponding draft wording change, but the issue does not name a file, test, or concrete edit.