Ok, this clarifies that I had, after all, completely misunderstood the original formulation:
Why is the description interpreted in this way?
Does it say anywhere that recharging is excluded on the e-file?
The answer to both lies in the way the list of promotions was phrased: “Pawns on the files a and i become either chancellorrider or zecari pieces”, f.ex., reads as if a pawn reaching either of these files may choose what it promotes to from the list (i.e. it becimes one of those once it is on the file); the lack of mention for the e‐file then suggested that a pawn arriving there is unaffected. And the fact that a and i, b and h, and so on are paired together means that the order of promotions also doesn't serve as a clue to matching them with the three choices of forward direction.
I'd suggest it'd be clearer still if you mentioned the new formulation before the old one, and kept the old one (if at all) as a clarifying list of examples; at the moment it reads like the old phrasing is the main rule (still missing a case for a pawn coming from the e‐file — which is impossible from rank 1 but can happen from rank 7) and the new one is an explanation (which is, due to the omitted case, not necessarily quite equivalent).
For extra clarity “Pawns on the files” might be rephrased to “Pawns coming from the files”
Ok, this clarifies that I had, after all, completely misunderstood the original formulation:
The answer to both lies in the way the list of promotions was phrased: “Pawns on the files a and i become either chancellorrider or zecari pieces”, f.ex., reads as if a pawn reaching either of these files may choose what it promotes to from the list (i.e. it becimes one of those once it is on the file); the lack of mention for the e‐file then suggested that a pawn arriving there is unaffected. And the fact that
aandi,bandh, and so on are paired together means that the order of promotions also doesn't serve as a clue to matching them with the three choices of forward direction.I'd suggest it'd be clearer still if you mentioned the new formulation before the old one, and kept the old one (if at all) as a clarifying list of examples; at the moment it reads like the old phrasing is the main rule (still missing a case for a pawn coming from the
e‐file — which is impossible from rank 1 but can happen from rank 7) and the new one is an explanation (which is, due to the omitted case, not necessarily quite equivalent).For extra clarity “Pawns on the files” might be rephrased to “Pawns coming from the files”