I may be missing your intent on what this is, but I've posted my reactiosn below, and I think I found 1 rule that I'd put in RACSD instead of RAI, RAW, or houserules.
This is RAI, not RACSD, imho. If you're dead-set on the overlap, I agree, this needs to be a clarification to the original RAW.
This is not RACSD, cause it isn't 'common sense' at all. This is straight houserule/homebrew, and a version contrary to how I'd personally handle it.
The rule itself works(and I'd play in a game using it just fine), but its not RACSD.
Again, RAI, imho.
Agree, definitely a RACSD ruling.
This one's RAI again.
1.This one unintentionally gives some monsters(like elementals who had natural weapons, but not unarmed strike) extra attacks they didn't have before. That needs to be fixed.
2.Again, I'd argue this isn't RACSD but rather RAI already.
This has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with fluff.
Pretty sure this one is just houserule.
I think this is houserule/homebrew, not RACSD.
RAW
There's debate about this one, but I argue that this is RAW(via primary source rules) for pretty much every class out there(that rule only applies to the books its written in). Its also RAI.
Unnecessary. Anytime this might come up with a particular game, the DM is going to rule against this RACSD(if he was going to rule for it, it wouldn't have come up).