He has to actually take part in making the decision, if that's what you're talking about, to be found to have contravened the decision-making. The distinction in the two circumstances was that in one case, he took part in a discussion and had the capacity to have an effect on it. The words are “an opportunity” to affect it. He should recuse himself from that, but in fact, I found that he did not make any decision.
I don't know if I'm answering your question at all, but there are two different overlays there. One is making the decision and one is participating in the discussion and having the opportunity to affect the outcome.