When there are conformance options, the Conformance section should summarize these and make it clear a conformance claim should include them

The clause for DITA-aware processor says: "A DITA-aware processor MUST support at least one map or topic type, whether defined by the DITA standard or defined as a custom vocabulary module."
This implies that there are different options for conformance. It is then critical for interoperability that an implementation claiming conformance, specifies which one of these options it supports - here which "map(s) or topic type(s)". The conformance section or clause should then outline what is the proper way to claim conformance - e.g. "conforming to the DITA-aware processor profile, with supported map(s) or topic type(s) X,Y,Z, ".
Incidentally:
The conformance clause itself should not define conformance based on what is claimed or not.
"A processor that implements all required processing relevant to the vocabulary modules that it claims to support." So is it sufficient for me to always conform here if I just decide to not claim support for any vocabulary modules ?
"Claiming" should refer to conformance definitions, not the reverse. This first sentence is unnecessary and opens the way for dishonest claims!. To my former point, what is necessary is a sentence somewhere that says "a conformance claim for DITA-aware processor , must include the set of maps or topic types supported." or the like.