[expr.prim.lambda.capture]/12 Lengthy but redundant wording

[expr.prim.lambda.capture]/12 says

An entity is captured by reference if it is implicitly or explicitly captured but not captured by copy.

However, [expr.prim.lambda.capture]/8 says

An entity is captured if it is captured explicitly or implicitly.

So it's enough to say

An entity is captured by reference if it is implicitly or explicitly captured but not captured by copy.

Similarly [expr.prim.lambda.capture]/17

[Note 10: If a non-reference entity is implicitly or explicitly captured by reference, invoking the function call operator of the corresponding lambda-expression after the lifetime of the entity has ended is likely to result in undefined behavior. — end note]

Or is it intentional to use a verbose tone to remind readers?

Review [expr.prim.lambda.capture] paragraphs 8, 12, and 17 in the draft source, comparing the repeated wording with the definition of “captured.” Remove the redundant “implicitly or explicitly” phrasing where appropriate, and confirm the resulting text preserves the intended meaning in both the normative statement and the note.