1) I'm NOT sure the ruling depends on whether this is an interrupted dribble. Without the note in 9-3-1, it wouldn't be an OOB situation -- and there's no similar note in 9-9.
If you don't buy that, then:
2) I seem to recall a case play (or interp) to the effect that "A1 chases a loose ball (yeah -- I know that's not a term) near the sideline. A1 grabs the ball and tosses it back on the court. A1's momentum carries him/her OOB. A1 returns inbounds and grabs the ball, then begins a dribble. Ruling: Double Dribble (yeah ...). A1's first toss to the court was the start of a dribble."
So, if the toss was intentional and the start of a dribble, why wasn't it an OOB violation on A1 (under 9-3-1 NOTE)? Because it was an interrupted dribble. So, an interrupted dribble can be "intentional".
(Edit to add: Found the case play. See 7.1.1.D)
(Edit to add: Damn. NevadaRef found it before I could.)
If you don't buy that, then:
3) See MTD's comment.