Ah, I see. I misunderstood at first.

This seems to be related to CWG1027 which is not resolved because there was an idea that it would be resolved by CWG1116, whose proposed resolution was going to simply make certain replacements UB. Since CWG1116 was resolved differently from the proposed resolution, CWG1027 was not resolved and is still open.
--
Brian Bi

Although that seem to be related more to basic#life-8 to give original pointers / references even more freedom in the case if the new object is transparently replaceable. Or your point is that because CWG1027 mentions that if basic#life-8 condition does not apply (since re-use comes before end of lifetime in placement new), than it is allowed to use original reference? Which means if basic#life-6 condition I mentioned above also does not apply we also still can use original reference? So it is kind of allowed just because it was not forbidden?