I don't feel it needs to be an emergency amendment, due to that "up for review clause". As such, I don't feel it actually needs to be an amendment at all. In both letter and intent, that sentence indicates that this particular part was to be reviewed and clarified. While this announcement does conflict with what is written there, the inclusion of that section as it is was an editing error.

I would argue that

1. the moderation team and the authors (who are mostly the same people) can review and decide on this section without needing an amendment, as that clause grants that right,

2. Amending the constitution for a clear editing oversight (an unfinished, outdated section accidentally being included before it was finished) could be argued as a simple fix. While this is debateable because it changes the letter of what is written, I would argue it as "awkward wording".

3. It can be done as an emergency amendment if either of these is challenged and fails.

This does not set a precedent because it is limited to a single specific situations: a clause stating that the constitution was unfinished. This is resolving that clause, not changing intent.