[lex.name] The note could be clearer to say keywords are identifiers before phase 7.

The note in [lex.name]/1 is not very clear.

[Note 4: In translation phase 4, identifier also includes those preprocessing-tokens differentiated as keywords ([lex.key]) in the later translation phase 7 ([lex.token]). — end note]

• First, we know that pp-tokens consist of identifiers and we wonder whether these identifiers actually cover keywords. This sentence requires that we have already known that pp-tokens cover keywords in phase 4.
• Second, it allows for vacuous truth, i.e., it seems possible at first glance that there are no pp-tokens in phase 4 that would be differentiated as keywords in phase 7.

An alternative wording similar to [cpp] is better.

[Note 4: In translation phases 4 3 through 5, identifier also includes those lexically identical to keywords ([lex.key]) preprocessing-tokens differentiated as keywords ([lex.key]) in the later translation phase 7 ([lex.token])~~. — end note]

See also the issue in CWG repository.

Start at the note in [lex.name]/1 and compare its wording with the alternative shown in the issue and the corresponding wording in [cpp]. Update the note so it clearly covers phases 3 through 5 and identifiers lexically identical to keywords, then verify that the rendered draft reflects the revised wording.