I think it's better than just leaving it as incapable of consenting, because then I think it's open to confusion: “Wait a minute, isn't that just redundant, (a) and (b)?”
I take the point that the addition of the words “for any reason other than unconsciousness” is an attempt to say it's a broader category. I guess my question is why we are separating out unconsciousness as some kind of standard that's worthy of particular mention. If the idea is that we want to reflect something that was unclear about the law, and the court needed to clarify in J.A. at a time when we had paragraph (b), talking about incapacity to consent, what was unclear about the law at the time that J.A. was decided was not that unconsciousness is a form of incapacity; it was that the relevant time for determining consent is at the time the sexual activity takes place, and you can't give it in advance. That's what's not reflected in these amendments. To me, that would be a better addition, because it would actually speak to the legal issue that was debated in J.A.