Conformance clause needs be more precise

Conformance clause reads:
"A set of information bundle definitions and their associated user data validation artefacts conforming to these naming and design rules does not violate any rule or requirement expressed in normative sections of this specification where the word shall is used in the context for which the user is utilizing these rules”

A few issues/suggestions with that clause:

• conformance target: why not just a "information bundle" ? (as most commonly mentioned in the doc) instead of "set of information bundle definitions", an expression in fact found nowhere else in the doc?
• Imprecise reference to normative content: how do we distinguish a "requirement" that is not a Rule? SHould it always use a normative keyword (shall)? How about "required"?
• “context for which the user is utilizing these rules” are defined by examples? Not appropriate for a conformance clause to rely on examples.
• ideally, the conformance clause should refer precisely to the normative text to be obeyed, i.e. to the list of rules #ids. (Do we need normative requirements outside these rules?)

(for more details on conf clause best practices, see conf clause guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=55011&wg_abbrev=tab )