Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold?

Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

Asking what a regulator's document actually says, since the summaries of it disagree.

I have the primary document open and two secondhand accounts of it that cannot both be right. The primary document is narrower than either.

My question is whether I am reading the scope of it correctly, and what the correct reading rules out as well as what it permits.

I disagree with the framing of Enforcement priorities above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.

The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.

Everything in post #13 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Preclinical versus clinical: compounds with strong preclinical data can fail in clinical trials. Compounds with no human data are being used on theoretical grounds. The regulatory position reflects this asymmetry.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

Taking post #31 at face value and following it one step further.

Import rules for personal quantities differ from commercial import rules and both differ by country. Establishing your own position is not something a forum can do for you.

The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.

Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Enforcement priorities data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.