5715 – Contradiction in spec: meaning of variable.init

"If applied to a variable or field, it is the default initializer for that variable or field. For example:
int a;
int b = 1;
typedef int t = 2;
t c;
t d = cast(t)3;
int.init	// is 0
a.init		// is 0
b.init		// is 0
t.init		// is 2
c.init		// is 2
d.init		// is 2"
According to the prose, b.init == 1. But this claims it is 0. Similarly with d.
I recall the semantics being changed at some point from the initial value of the variable to that of its type. This matches the examples, but not what the statement actually says. Possible rewrite of that paragraph:
".init produces a constant expression that is the default initializer. If applied to a type, it is the default initializer for that type. If applied to a variable, it is the default initializer for the variable's type. If applied to a field, it is the default initializer for that field. For example:"
Moreover, is the meaning for a field meant to apply only to type.field constructions, or to object.field constructions as well?

Changed to:
 If applied to a variable or field, it is the
 default initializer for that variable or field's type.