UML22 — Actor concept was indeed changed

The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers.

This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec.
It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n

The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says:

Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names.

But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors

1. ability to own behaviors
2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior
3. and own triggers.

some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better.

Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value.

Discussion
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change