I think in my opening submission I described that as argument which pulled itself up by its own bootstraps. But you have a more elegant way of explaining the flaw in it.
I'm also interested in subparagraph (f) on the next page. This is an area which vexes all of us really. But your definition is interesting:
"Exposing misleading public claims made by individuals or organisations."
Might there still be debate there as to what is a claim? Could there be a misleading implied claim, for example? In other words, to go back to my footballer who claims to be happily married, almost implicitly and/or makes money out of that cachet, then does something which is inconsistent with that, are you intending to cover that sort of case, or are you intending to narrow the --