Hello Anonymous Coward,
It's quite possible I'm prone logical fallacies. I have, however, dealt with a few RFCs, specifications and the like from the IEEE, IETF, various trade associations and other organizations over the years so I'm used to seeing sections labeled MANDATORY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED and so forth.
If a widget (software, hardware, etc.) does not implement all of the functionality that's required as part of a specification, it typically does not get to claim that functionality, use the appropriate logo(s) on its packaging and so forth.
I was aware of the UEFI requirements on ARM-based Windows RT devices while writing my white paper, however, because I did not have one to test with, nor, for that matter, were there any Windows-on-ARM tablets available that I'm aware of (aside from very old and underpowered Windows CE-based PDAs, which I do not think are modern enough to even be worth mentioning). The tablet space is very different from the PC space in that vendor lock-in is the norm rather than the exception, at least from looking at the dominant players like Apple and Android. Admittedly, a number of Android tablets can be rooted, but all the ones I have seen or used come with an operating system and software loaded, including some kind of appstore.
In the case of UEFI firmware and Secure Boot on ARM, I did not feel it was worth discussing since the experience there is largely one of a closed ecosystem already.