I personally don't think this is necessary. If a written protest uniquely describes the protestee then it has (in my view) "identified" them in compliance with RRS 60.3(a). RRS 60.3(a) does not specify any particular way in which the protestee is to be identified and so I personally think any way that uniquely identifies them should be acceptable under RRS 60.3(a). (Possible examples include: the sail number of the boat, the bow number of boat, the name of the boat, the name of the helm of the boat, a description of the logo displayed on the spinnaker of the boat, and so on).

Graham re: "If a written protest uniquely describes the protestee then it has (in my view) "identified" them in compliance with RRS 60.3(a)"

I think maybe I could buy that.  Just to keep that idea going, and explore that ("uniquely describes") a bit .. 

In a J/22 class regatta where the vast majority or possibly all boats are white hulled, describing the protestee as "a white hulled J/22" would be insufficient?  But, if there are only a couple colored hulls, then saying "a blue hulled J/22" would be ok (without an SI modifying 60.3(a))?

PS:  Are we concerned that without changing 60.3(a) we are conflating "describing" and "identifying"?

If I'm asked the 2 questions .. Can you describe the object? .. Can you identify the object? .. aren't those 2 different answers?

Isn't "uniquely describing" something just a step in the process of identifying something? I.e., once it is uniquely described, it can be identified. In reverse, identification can be directly achieved by quoting a sail/hull number or by determining the sail/hull number of the only pink boat in the fleet. I see this as synonymous in the context of 60.3(a). However, the problem with this is that it puts the onus on the PC to convert a unique description into an identification, which is in my opinion is undesirable.