My experience with lack of clarity when it comes to major projects and decision-making is that it just postpones the project. It doesn't allow for a quick decision-making process, which then leads to the project just disappearing. The proponent of the project just moves to a different jurisdiction and does something else. We see that in British Columbia. The financial markets give the province of British Columbia a 1% risk factor when it comes to doing business there. They cite UNDRIP as part of that, just because of the tension between the two different terms.
If we removed paragraph 4(a), so we could leave the title as “Purpose”, and fixed your framework word, I think that would fix a lot of those concerns.