I believe the implication from @ijw and @Mahtamori is that 2+4 are connected as well. I can see the argument supporting it but I want an explanation i can apply elsewhere.
The linking about the bullets points is important when they want the rulling to qualify something particularily but without making the bullet point too long. In this particular case rullings are: 1: Cautious movement inside ZoC 2+3: Short movement or Cautious (Entire order) inside ZoC but outside LoF = No ARO unless second action is any non-movement skill. 4: If (describe case number 2+3 with non-movement skill), then only Engaged-avaliable AROs In this case there is no connector between 2+3 and 4 so they are readed independently, but the bullet point 4 in the if is describing a particular case defined in 2+3, and then proceed to rule that particular case. So in this case is: 1: Independent rule 2+3: Independent rule 4: Ruling about case 2+3 (introduced with the if) For example if you remove the “However” then the bullet point number 3 would be “if the second Short Skill of the Order is any non-Movement Skill, then those enemies can react normally in ARO.” That as a general rule would be out of context, in this case it is clear what they are referring; but in other cases it could alter the entire meaning of the rule (see stratuscloud state :/) Basically each bullet point should give you a full piece of info unless any connector make it qualify the bullet point before; and if the bullet point is defining a particular case, then the rulle is only for that particular case. In this case the number 4 is qualifying the 2+3 without connector, but only because it is defining the particular case in that bullet point.
