[conv.general] Note misuses «destination type»

As we know,

16 The semantics of initializers are as follows.The destination type is the type of the object or reference being initialized

Now the Note:

2 [Note 2: Expressions with a given type will be implicitly converted to other types in several contexts:

(2.1) When used as operands of operators. The operator's requirements for its operands dictate the destination type ([expr.compound]).
(2.2) When used in the condition of an if statement ([stmt.if]) or iteration statement ([stmt.iter]). The destination type is bool.
(2.3) When used in the expression of a switch statement ([stmt.switch]). The destination type is integral.
(2.4) When used as the source expression for an initialization (which includes use as an argument in a function call and use as the expression in a return statement).
The type of the entity being initialized is (generally) the destination type. See [dcl.init], [dcl.init.ref].
— end note]

The operator's requirements for its operands dictate the destination type

is wrong, because a built-in operator's operand is not an «object or reference being initialized»

(2.2) is kinda OK, because implicit conversion to bool is modeled as declaration bool t(E);

(2.3) is wrong. Class types are contextually implicitly converted (http://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.switch#2.sentence-3), and this conversion is described not relying on initialization http://eel.is/c++draft/conv.general#def:contextually_implicitly_converted

(2.4) is, obviously, OK

Start at the [conv.general] note and compare its statements about destination types with the cited [dcl.init.general], [stmt.if], [stmt.iter], and [stmt.switch] clauses. Check the definition of contextually implicitly converted as well; done means the note accurately describes each conversion context without treating every operand as an initialized object or reference.