JoshPerlmutter,
If you look at my first comment , I specifically asked if you have put your comment in docops. For 12.52SP1 and 12.52SP2 the documentation is now maintained in docops.ca.com.
The link that you provided in your OP, itself is from docops.ca.com. Unfortunately, I don't see your comment in that link.
I believe your current post would have been more helpful, if it was made to the docops directly. As, any comment in docops is monitored by our techpub team and are acted upon as quickly as possible. Sometime there might be delays, as they do not have the technical background, they might have to go back to development/product management before getting approval for the change.
Now coming to inaccuracies. Yes , there are some inaccuracies and they will be be corrected over the time based on the feedback from our customers, engineers, supports etc.
As far as the direction we are moving forward about requirement specification, as Gayatri said, the plan is to specify only the library along with the minimum major version that is supported. e.g. libstdc++-6
Now here, I don't think there is ANY need to specify .so extension (or any harm if .so extension is provided) as that should be self explanatory when we say library. This would also mean that libstdc++-6.x.x would be supported.
and, YES, we will be supporting ANY rpm providing these libraries.
Hope this clarifies few of your concerns if not all.
Cheers,
Ujwol Shrestha