I don’t follow your logic here. I’ve been reading contracts and legislation for 40 years. When two clauses defining when something can happen are connected with an “or,” that explicitly means that the action can occur if either of the clauses is satisfied. A condition stated in clause ii does not condition or limit clause i.
MLB may have chosen to interpret the language in a way that differs from what their attorneys wrote; wouldn’t be the first time, and the Commissioner’s Office could issue a “clarification” to the effect that the rule differs from what they wrote…but the language is clear. That said, if none of the member clubs challenge it, the language will likely persist.