I think what has happened is that because we were busy discussing other aspects of the amendment, we failed to notice the fact that BQ-3 and BQ-5 deal with this slightly differently. BQ-5 assumes that there's an identifier. BQ-3, which we've just adopted, indicates that there may not yet be an identifier, which is in contradiction to something we've already dealt with.
I have no idea procedurally how to get out of that, but I suspect you'd find that a majority of the committee would actually prefer the content of BQ-5 to that of BQ-3.