The proposal is a step in the right direction but could be simplified to make it easier to read in conjunction with other rules. I think it needs more explanation as to the historical reasons behind distinguishing between registered persons and associated persons, and clarification in other rules like 3210 where they are referred implicitly by the rule saying "No person associated with a member" instead of "Associated Person", which is how the text appears in 1011. The proposal seems to blur the actual lines between the two.