Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.
A commentary on clarification vs. changes:
This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?
My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".
Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.