BPMN21 — Probable contradiction: Implicit compensation and Throwing Compensation Events

In table 10.88 "End Event Types", the table row with header "Compensation" contains this statement:
"To be compensated, an Activity MUST have a boundary Compensation Event or contain a Compensation Event Sub-Process."
The same applies to Table 10.89 "Intermediate Event Types in Normal Flow" on page 251.

On page 234, however, there is this statement: "The compensation handler is either user defined or implicit."

The two statements, taken together, would mean that an implicit compensation handler cannot be called by a Throwing Compensation Event.

This probably is not intended.

Either the concept of implicit compensation should be removed alltogether (which is not my preference), or alternatively the sentence
"To be compensated, an Activity MUST have a boundary Compensation Event or contain a Compensation Event Sub-Process."
should be changed like this:
"To be compensated, an Activity MUST have a boundary Compensation Event or contain a Compensation Event Sub-Process, or the Activity must be a Sub-Process or a Call Activity calling a Process."
because sub-processes and called processes always are implicitly compensable (unless the compensable attribute is set to false).