In F107, step 2 of the procedure IMO is ambiguous:
Check that the input purpose is not communicated programmatically through any other method.
Without additional context, I would interpret this as meaning that a meaningful accessible name could be considered "another method" of communicating the input purpos, but, this is not the intent of the SC, which specifically concerned with exposing the input purpose programmatically using the appropriate mechanism (for example, the autocomplete attribute where applicable). A meaningful accessible name, while important for other SC, does not satisfy this requirement.
I suggest clarifying the wording of step 2 so that it is clear that "another method" does not include providing an accessible name or other programmatically associated text. This would help avoid confusion between the concepts of input purpose and accessible name.
In F107, step 2 of the procedure IMO is ambiguous:
Without additional context, I would interpret this as meaning that a meaningful accessible name could be considered "another method" of communicating the input purpos, but, this is not the intent of the SC, which specifically concerned with exposing the input purpose programmatically using the appropriate mechanism (for example, the autocomplete attribute where applicable). A meaningful accessible name, while important for other SC, does not satisfy this requirement.
I suggest clarifying the wording of step 2 so that it is clear that "another method" does not include providing an accessible name or other programmatically associated text. This would help avoid confusion between the concepts of input purpose and accessible name.