UML25 — actors of a use case express the requirements of its subject(s) regarding its/their environment.

Quoted from §18.1.3, p686: “An Actor models a type of role played by an entity that interacts with the subjects of its associated UseCases (e.g., by exchanging
signals and data), but which is external in the sense that an instance of an Actor is not a part of the instance of a subject of an
associated UseCase. Actors may represent roles played by human users, external hardware, or other systems.”

There are common cases where some actors (i.e. entities interaction with the subject) have no real needs (or requirements) by themselves for being part of a use case. Instead, the modeler use the specification of actors to defined what is not under the system responsibility. This seems a little odd to me to speak about “actor’s needs/requirements” in such a case. I would rather say that the actors of a use case express the requirements of its subject(s) regarding its/their environment.

Delete the contentious sentence (not actually mentioned in the issue, but the earlier sentence in 18.1.1 which
talks about the “needs” of Actors) which adds no value to the spec.