I think what the author actually wants from (1) is a transformation of common (or maybe all) UB to be more strongly specified as implementation-defined. That could be reasonable, with specific scope. I'm having trouble determining the proposed scope from the post, though.

(2) seems like it is already specified; the trouble is in determining what "the semantics of the program" are. This relates to (1) although it doesn't seem like the author has a completely solid grasp of the legalities of the language.