There is a third alternative. 14 states "If reasonably possible". It would appear that it was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact, so no breach of 14 by W. Whether or not it was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact would depend on why the heel (with no change of course) took place. If the PC found that it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact, then W would be in breach of 11 and there does not appear to be any basis for 43.1(c) to apply to W.

Leaving sailing and entering linguistics.
Keep it simple: What is the goal of X?

In race signals it is called "Individual recall" . Where is the meaning of the recall of a boat that (still) did not broke any rules? 

Why to display it differently on P or I?

So, change the wording if it is wrong. Patch the rules text. 

Disclaimer: not using I for years, just P,  U or black.

In P or I starts, there are usualy some/several boats over in the last minute. On I, usually behind the RC boat, waiting the last 20-30 sec to return back over the extension and start properly. No one broke the rules. 
You probably must, if you follow the rules on this way, bring up the X as you put down I.
Is this the meaning of X? 

Fair enough.

I'm happy to accept your view then. 

Its clear that the overwhelming opinion opposes John's proposal for whatever reason.

I think the tribe has spoken. 

Thomas ..
  Both Case 77 and Case 91 when taken together imply your answer I think.   Both pertain to the obligations of a keep clear boat when  the equipment of the ROW boat is out of its normal position. 

A boom swinging from the starboard to port side is a boom operating in its normal operating positions.   A KC boat sailing DDW so close along side a ROW boat that if the ROW boat flops her boom over, without ROW changing course, that the boom hits part of the KC boat .. the KC boat has not kept clear IMO.  

In other words, a ROW boat that has to prevent their boom from moving fully to the port side to avoid contact with a KC boat has executed "an avoiding action" IMO.  

I think this is affirmed in the negative when you read the cases I linked to above.  In those cases they discuss the obligations of a KC boat when equipment is or moves out of its normal location.  

IMO, unless there is a case that says otherwise, there should be nothing unexpected about a boat sailing DDW on port-tack flopping her main over such that she is sailing on starboard-tack. A KC should be keeping enough space between them to allow that.

Brad:  I don't think so.  We have established that the boat on the right in the diagram, boat T, is the 'inside' boat.  She is overlapped.  But she is not a right-of-way boat, as she is the windward boat in the overlap with C.  So she must keep clear under 11.  So she doesn't meet the requirements of 18.4  She also has no need to gybe at the mark to sail her proper course.

18.4 typically applies in a situation like the following, where boat A is inside, right-of-way (starboard tack while B is on Port), and overlapped.

Boat A must gybe at the mark to sail her proper course.  She can sail to her proper course, which is the one she would sail in the absence of the other boat in order to sail the course as quickly as possible, but she can sail no farther from the mark than needed to do so.  [See the definition of proper course]  So in this case, she may swing wide, then sail close to the mark as she gybes, and obey 18.4